/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220902.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 170
Headlines
17 EDUCATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 19
3M COMPANY: Angles Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Echols Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Frankenstein Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ALLERGAN INC: Weisbein TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Watkins Files ADA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
AMAT VICTORIA: Tran Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ex-Employee Files Race Discrimination Lawsuit
AMERICAN FAMILY: Prelim Pretrial Order Entered in Timmins Suit
AMPIO PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES: $6MM Deal in False Ads Suit Has Final OK
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Settles Ritas False Advertising Class Action
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: November 22 Trial Set for Robocall Class Suit
ASPEN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action OVer Phoenix Nursing Program
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT: Tuttle Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
B&B ITALIA USA: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BASIC FUN INC: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAYER CORPORATION: Newman Sues Over False Advertising
BED BATH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Violations
BIG HEART: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule Entered
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
BLITT AND GAINS: Heinz Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
BLOCK INC: Faces Class Action Over Cash App Data Breach
BLOCK INC: Salinas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Delayed Flights
CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Probes over Alleged Securities Violations
CAPITAL READY MIX: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CARVANA CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3
CELSIUS NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 13
CENTENE CORP: Duff, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
CHIC SOUL: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Unmetered Water Service Refunds
CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE: D. B. Sues Over Relocation Plan
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CM SCHOOL SUPPLY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CMFG LIFE INSURANCE: Abel Sues Over ERISA Violation
COAST DENTAL: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Wollerman Sues Over Misleading Marketing
COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure User Accounts From Hackers
COINBASE INC: Aggarwal Sues Over Security Failures
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hystad Ceynar Files Suit in D. North Dakota
CORNERSTONE CAPITAL: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Yamido Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CVS HEALTH: Denial of Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Affirmed
DANIEL LANZER: Cosmetic Surgery Victims Sue over Negligence
DIRECTV LLC: Hossfeld Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
DISH NETWORK: Sued Over Mismanaged Funds
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile Appeals Denial of Cert. Bid in FCRA Suit
DR. JAMES HEAPS: Sexual Assault Trial Begins
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Valarezo Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
EASY BED MATTRESS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ELOCAL USA: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Lewis FDCPA Suit removed to E.D. North Carolina
FCA US LLC: Do Files Suit in N.D. California
FCA US LLC: Regueiro Files Suit in C.D. California
FERMENTED SCIENCES: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Alcoholic Drinks
FISHER INVESTMENTS: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Nov. 10
FSP BOOKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
G-NET CONSTRUCTION: Villanueva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Oil Consumption Class Action Trial Set Sept. 19
GENIUS BRANDS: Alavi Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California
GMRI INC: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in Pennsylvania
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Workspace Services
GREIF INC: Ryan Sues Over Drinking Water Contamination
HARD ROCK CAFE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Sanabria Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
HENRY INDUSTRIES: Sarate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HILL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Investigation Over Proposed Merger
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 21
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Suit Removed to N.D. California
HP INC: Plaintiffs Want Printer Firmware Class Action Expanded
HY-VEE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bissell Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
ILLUMINATE EDUCATION: Chung Suit Transferred to C.D. California
INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Suit Over Suboxone's Illegal Marketing Scheme
INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Levine Hat Files Suit in E.D. New York
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Appeals Summary Judgment in Roman Labor Suit
JANCO INDUSTRIES: Mariscal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JOBY AVIATION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations in Calif.
KASHI SALES: Cosgrove Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
KATTIE DEDLOFF: Target Corporation Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
KEYES COMPANY: Navarro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KIA AMERICA INC: Fruhling Sues Over Defective Vehicles
KIA AMERICA INC: Hall Files Suit in D. Nebraska
KIA AMERICA INC: McNerney Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defect
KIA AMERICA INC: Yeghiaian Files Suit in C.D. California
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 4
KLINGENSTEIN FIELDS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KROGER CO: Class Cert. Bid Must Be Filed by Nov. 30, 2023
KROGER CO: Sumner Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
LASHLINER INC: Faces Weathers Suit over Illegal Membership Fees
LAWTON, OK: Wilson Files ADA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
LEARNING JOURNEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LENOX ADVISORS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LETTUCE ENTERTAIN: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Surcharges
LISA FRANK INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOTTERY.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 18
LOTTERY.COM INC: Bronstein Reminds of Oct. 18 Lead Plaintiff Due
MAJOR LEAGUE: $185M Settlement in FLSA Suit Wins Final Approval
MAJOR LEAGUE: Concepcion, et al., Seek to Certify Player Class
MARCO DESTIN: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARDEL INC: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASTERPIECES PUZZLE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAYFLOWER TRANSIT: Ct. Certifies Class, Approves Fees in Greenley
MAZDA MOTOR: Marinova Suit Removed to C.D. California
MDL 2804: Washington Cty., Va. Received $40,000 Settlement
MEDICREDIT INC: Jordan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
MEDQUEST PHARMACY: Buechler Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
MERCEDES BENZ USA: Betancourt Files Suit in C.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Settles Location Tracking Class Suit for $37.5-M
MICHAELS STORES: 9th Cir. to Test SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling
MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17
MOBILE FIDELITY: Uses Digital Files in Recording, Class Suit Claims
MONTAGE MOUNTAIN: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MULTICARE HEALTH: Partially Averts Drug Diversion Class Action
NASHVILLE BOOTING: Ladd Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply OK'd
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Anthony Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Roberts Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
NCI GROUP: Ct. Initially Approves Class Settlement in Gonzalez
NEW YORK BLACK: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Kasiotis Suit
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Transmissions
NORMANDY, MO: $1.3MM Deal in Civil Rights Suit Wins Final OK
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: FHFA Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari
NTY FRANCHISE COMPANY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OHIO: Faces Suit Over Illegal Lamination Fees of Driver Licenses
ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Forby Suit
OPPENHEIMER & CO: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Ponzi Scheme Suit
ORANGE COAST TITLE: Bryan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ORBIT ENERGY: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
OUTSET MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept 6
PAM TRANSPORT: Agrees to Settle Wage Class Action for $4.75 Mil.
PANERA BREAD: Lee Sues Over Auto-Renewing Subscription
PAPA INC: Andersen Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
PEMBER COMPANIES: Court Tosses O'Bryan's Bid for Class Cert.
PETE AND GERRY'S: Dean Files Suit in M.D. Florida
POINTSBET USA: Gutman Files Suit in D. Colorado
PROCOLLECT INC: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Probe Over Securities Violations
RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Allowed Leave to File Response
READY 2 DELIVER: Littlejohn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE: Zirus Files Suit in S.D. Texas
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Liverpool Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
SELECT REHABILITATION: Response Deadline for Class Cert Bid Sought
SHARKEY'S FRANCHISING: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHERLE WAGNER: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SILVER IN THE CITY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMON'S AGENCY: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Huber Suit
SIMPSON LAW FIRM: Norwood Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
SIT DOWN NEW YORK: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Utilize Opinions
SOCLEAN INC: Thompson Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SOLANA LABS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 6
TAVISTOCK GENDER: Faces Suit Over Trans-Affirmative Treatment
TENEOLOGY INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEXAS: Faces $27-Bil. Civil Rights Suit Over School Mass Shooting
TG THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 16
THREE WISHES: Harville Sues Over Deceptive Practices in Labeling
TIKTOK INC: $92-M Deal in BIPA Suit Gets Final Court Approval
TIKTOK INC: Ill. Residents to Get Largest Shares in $92M Settlement
TIOGA DOWNS RACETRACK: Potter Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York
TRANSUNION LLC: Kilpatrick Townsend Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
TRIPLE J. BEDDING: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TSCHETTER SULZER: Franklin Files FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
TTEC SERVICES: Nears Settlement of 2021 Data Breach Class Action
TWITTER INC: Sued in Calif. for Using Users' Data Without Consent
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Reminds of Oct. 17 Lead Plaintiff Due
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: RM LAW Reminds of Oct. 17 Lead Plaintiff Due
UNITED COLLECTION: Jorgen Sues Over Unauthorized Recordings
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File 4th Amended Complaint
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ryan Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
US BANK NATIONAL: Kirsner Suit Removed to D. Colorado
US GAMES SYSTEMS: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
US RETAIL FLOWERS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UVALDE, TX: School District Faces Lawsuit Over Mass Shooting
VAIL RESORTS: Quint Suit Seeks to Certify Collective & Class
VICE MEDIA: Kramer Files Suit in E.D. New York
WALMART INC: Judge Tosses Fudge Mint Cookies Class Action Suit
WEBER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 27
WESTROCK COMPANY: Waldrop FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Tapply Sues Over Concealment of Defect
WHITING OIL AND GAS: Hystad Ceynar Files Suit in D. North Dakota
WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over Shortage of Public Defenders
YUMA REGIONAL: Rivera Suit Removed to D. Arizona
ZARBEE'S INC: Lopez Sues Over Systematical Misrepresentation
[*] Class Actions to Impact European Litigation Landscape in 2023
[*] Edwin Coe Attorney Discusses Class Action Trend in UK, Europe
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Intl. Has 178 Cases Pending as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Personal Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Personal Injury Suits
*********
17 EDUCATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of 17 Education & Technology Group
Inc. (NASDAQ: YQ) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with 17EdTech's December 2020
initial public offering (the "IPO"), of the important September
19, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline, in the securities class action
commenced by the Firm.
If you purchased 17EdTech securities during the Class Period you
may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the 17EdTech class action, go
to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7395 or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than September 19, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track
record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices
do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer
recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities
class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or
partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise
in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO
Registration Statement featured false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant 17EdTech's K-12
Academic AST Services would end less than a year after the IPO; (2)
as part of its ongoing regulatory efforts, Chinese authorities
would imminently curtail and/or end 17EdTech's core business; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827 [GN]
3M COMPANY: Angles Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Angles, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-02819-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 23, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
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. 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 with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the 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
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 products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Echols Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Echols, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-02822-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 23, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
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. 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 with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the 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
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 products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Frankenstein Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Frankenstein, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC.,
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION,
CORTEVA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-02825-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 23, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
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. 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 with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the 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
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 products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Jackson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-02831-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 23, 2022), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
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. 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 with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the 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
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 products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ALLERGAN INC: Weisbein TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAY WEISBEIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGAN, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00801-SSS-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action;
2. designating him as class representative; and
3. appointing his attorneys as class counsel.
Allergan and its Marketing Executives, Andrew Barton and Tara
Capalbo, engaged in an alleged unlawful practice of sending
identical advertisement and telemarketing text messages en masse to
thousands of consumers to try to mislead them into buying
pharmaceutical products.
The Defendants committed this misconduct without first obtaining
the consumers' prior express consent to be subjected to such
intrusive marketing tactics. This conduct violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class of similarly
situated persons:
"All persons who received an SMS text message, sent by or on
behalf of Defendants from a short code phone number,
including the short code phone number 27747, that advertised
the commercial availability or quality of Botox or the Botox
Savings Program or that was sent to encourage the sale of
Botox or participation in the Botox Savings Program."
Allergan was an American global pharmaceutical company focused on
eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics,
breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 8,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3coruP6
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
David P. Milian, Esq.
CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN, LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 372-7474
Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
cperez@careyrodriguez.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Watkins Files ADA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Kenan Watkins, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00487-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., Aug. 20,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
The Allstate Corporation -- https://www.allstate.com/ -- is an
American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township,
Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald E. Stutzman, Jr., Esq.
THE STUTZMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
106 Luckney Station Road, Suite B
Flowood, MS 39232
Phone: (769) 208-5683
Fax: (601) 202-3022
Email: rstutzman@stutzmanlawfirm.com
AMAT VICTORIA: Tran Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Tran, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. AMAT VICTORIA CURAM ENTERPRISE LLC, individually and
d/b/a MAD WYNWOOD, and ANDRES SAN MARTIN and JOEY VEGA,
Individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-22705-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 25,
2022), is brought to recover unpaid wages, withheld tips, bonuses,
and/or commissions, lost wages, liquidated damages, the costs and
reasonable attorney's fees of this action, as applicable, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Florida
Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA").
From November of 2021 to the present, the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff minimum wages, unlawfully kept tips, bonuses, and
commissions, failed to maintain payroll records, never provided
notice of whether Plaintiff Tran was subject to a tip pool, or
whether the Defendant took a tip credit. The Defendant terminated
Plaintiff Tran's employment in retaliation for complaining of
numerous wage violations, including complaining that the Defendant
had not been maintaining records of the Plaintiff's actual hours
worked, did not pay Tran wages for all hours worked, improperly
withheld tips, and after numerous inquires as to whether she was
subject to a tip pool, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bottle server,
alongside about a dozen other servers from November 12, 2021 to
December 3, 2021.
The Defendant is a nightclub located in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett Daniel Kaplan, Esq.
BRETT D. KAPLAN, P.A.
2101 Ludlam Road, #704
Miami, FL 33155
Phone: (954) 529-8328
Email: brett@bkaplaw.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ex-Employee Files Race Discrimination Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Brown, writing for FOX Business, reports that a former American
Express employee filed a class-action complaint on Aug. 23 alleging
that the credit card company exhibited "callous indifference" to
civil rights law by terminating him because he is White and spoke
out against its "racially discriminatory" policies.
Brian Netzel, who worked a decade for Amex until he was terminated
in 2020, told FOX Business that he sued the company on behalf of
himself and potentially thousands of other similarly situated
employees following "an avalanche of bad things coming to White
people in that company once George Floyd was killed."
The lawsuit alleges that amid the racial tensions roiling the U.S.
in 2020, Amex implemented "anti-racism" policies throughout its
corporate structure that "gave preferential treatment to
individuals for being Black and unambiguously signaled to White
employees that their race was an impediment to getting ahead in the
company."
Netzel said such policies fostered a workplace rife with "a
tremendous amount of animosity" in which White employees were
unfairly punished or passed over for promotions, while some Black
employees were promoted merely to meet racial quotas and employees
were encouraged to "root out in McCarthy-era fashion people who
didn't agree with this overall philosophy."
Netzel pinpointed the origin of such policies at the top, recalling
company town halls in which CEO Stephen Squeri reportedly engaged
in "what amounted to an emotional tirade against police, against
systemic racism in the U.S. and within American Express."
"He made it clear that you needed to fight this with him, or you
needed to find another place to work," Netzel said of Squeri, who
assumed his current position at the company in 2018.
Netzel maintained that this created an atmosphere in which White
employees were treated disparately and forced to undergo trainings
in which they were told to treat Black coworkers differently.
"We weren't allowed to talk before they talked in a meeting," he
said, adding that they were explicitly advised against things such
as touching Black people's hair, as if it were a frequent
occurrence. According to the lawsuit, "no admonishments were given
to Black employees nor did the trainings direct Black employees on
how they should conduct themselves around other races."
Netzel also noted that Squeri was open about the company's
intention to fill the company's leadership roles with more African
Americans.
Netzel alleged in his complaint that his female manager, who is
Black, would "aggressively harass and berate White employees,"
overworking them and retaliating with poor performance reviews. He
also claims that Amex was aware of her behavior, and that she was
one of the executives who received financial incentives to reduce
the number of White people in her department.
A spokesperson for Amex described Netzel's allegations as "false
and without merit," telling FOX Business that the company has "a
longstanding commitment to living our company values, which include
fostering a diverse and inclusive culture where all colleagues can
thrive."
The spokesperson maintained that Amex provides no incentive for
behaviors that discriminate against or favor any group of
employees, and also pushed back against any claim that advancement,
hiring and compensation at the company is based on anything other
than individual qualifications, business and leadership
performance.
Netzel, however, believes Amex's policies are racist, and he hopes
his class action manages to convince the company to back off of
them and apologize to the employees he says have been hurt.
"American Express has an opportunity to reverse their policies,
apologize and make the people that were harmed whole," he
reflected. "Whether they'll do it is unknown. But if not, then
we're going to expose exactly what was done there through discovery
and through trial, and we're going to let a jury and ultimately
consumers decide."
The lawsuit's claims echo previous allegations of discrimination
Amex has faced. In 2021, five current and former employees told FOX
Business on condition of anonymity that the company engaged in
"reverse discrimination" against White employees, barring them from
promotions and steeping the workplace in the tenets of critical
race theory. Amex categorically denied the accusations at the
time.
According to internal documents reviewed in 2021 by Christopher F.
Rufo, a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute, Amex executives
subjected employees to a CRT-based training program during which
they were made to map their own intersectional identities and
"privilege" based on "race, sexual orientation, body type,
religion, disability status, age, gender identity [and]
citizenship." They were then reportedly expected to adjust their
behavior in the workplace based on their position in the
intersectional hierarchy.
Netzel said he is in contact with other Amex employees who are
fighting similar battles, but he acknowledged that many fear the
potential consequences of speaking out.
"The overall tone, I think, is that most people are just afraid to
go up against American Express," he said.
Netzel's attorney David Pivtorak told FOX Business that White
employees have been treated like second-class citizens at Amex for
several years.
"They've been subjected to seminars and trainings that labeled them
as bigots, denied opportunities due to the color of their skin, and
-- to add insult to injury -- punished and fired for asking to be
treated equally," he said, adding that his firm filed the class
action "to deliver justice for these workers, many of whom have
been forced to choose between their principles and their
livelihoods."
"Once the truth about American Express's virulent discrimination is
exposed in court, I have no doubt that it will be a clear warning
to the rest of the country about the dangers of woke capitalism,"
he added. [GN]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Prelim Pretrial Order Entered in Timmins Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA TIMMINS, HOLLY
JOHNSON, CLYNELL MICKEY, and ELMIRA HOBBS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY
INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
S.I., Case No. 3:22-cv-00214-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order
as follows:
-- Amendments to the pleadings: By leave of court
-- Motion & Brief To Certify Class: May 26, 2023
Responses: June 23, 2023
Replies: July 21, 2023
-- Deadline for filing dispositive January 5, 2024
motions:
Responses: February 5, 2024
Replies: February 26, 2024
-- Settlement Letters: June 7, 2024
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers
commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well
as investment and retirement-planning products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TlYJTG at no extra charge.[CC]
AMPIO PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE American: AMPE)
between December 29, 2020 and August 3, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than October 17, 2022.
If you purchased Ampio Pharmaceuticals securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the Ampio Pharmaceuticals class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8201 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com
or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A
class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
17, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Investors are encouraged to select qualified counsel with a track
record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices
do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer
recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm
represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its
practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative
litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities
class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and
prospects. Specifically, defendants: (1) inflated the Company's
true ability to successfully file a Biologics License Application
(BLA) for Ampio; (2) inflated the results of the AP-013 study of
Ampion (the Company's lead product with "unique immunomodulatory
action and anti-inflammatory effects" used to treat individuals
with inflammatory conditions including, but not limited to, severe
osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK)) and the timing of unblinding the
data from the AP-013 study; and (3) that, as a result, of the
foregoing, defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES: $6MM Deal in False Ads Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
openclassactions.com reports that an estimated $6,000,000 class
action lawsuit has been settled with producer of Budweiser, Bud
light and Bud Light Ritas(R) Brand Products such as Bud Light
Lime-A-Rita. The lawsuit alleges that Anheuser-Busch violated false
advertising laws by marketing the Lime-A-Rita's as containing
certain types of distilled alcohols such as tequila or wine, when
the drinks did not contain them.
Anheuser-Busch, the defendant in this case, is a major brewer and
producer of brands such as Budweiser, Bud Light, Michelob Ultra,
Stella Artois, Hoegaarden, and much more. Anheuser-Busch has not
admitted to any wrongdoing by agreeing to a class action
settlement. Additionally, the court has not decided on which part
is wrong or right.
You may be included in the Bud Light Lime-A-Rita Class Action
Settlement if you:
-- Are an individual who purchased for personal consumption, not
for resale, any Ritas(R) Brand Product in the United States between
January 1, 2018, and including July 19, 2022.
-- Purchased Ritas(TM) Brand Products, meaning any packaged,
bottles, cans, single-packaged products, Ritas(TM) brand Margarita,
Spritz, or Fizz Product, as well as variety pack containing any
Ritas products. Those Ritas(TM) Brand Products that were already in
compliance with the labeling and packaging changes that do not
falsely advertise are not included in the class action.
The amount of payment you will get from this class action
settlement depends on whether you have proof of purchase:
-- Up to $9.75 Per Household if you have no proof of purchase.
-- Up to $21.25 Per Household if you do have proof of purchase such
as receipts and statements.
You must submit a claim to qualify for a payout. The administrator
will review your submission upon receipt. You may only submit one
claim and any duplicate claims will not be accepted. If you timely
submit a valid Claim Form by December 16, 2022, you will be
entitled to receive a payment representing a pro rata share of the
Net Settlement Fund after attorney and court fees. [GN]
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Settles Ritas False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Anheuser-Busch agreed to an
undisclosed settlement to resolve claims its Ritas products don't
actually contain tequila or wine -- and no proof of purchase is
required for consumers to benefit.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased any Ritas products
(margarita products, spritzers and more) between Jan. 1, 2018, and
July 19, 2022. A full list of included products is available on the
settlement website.
Anheuser-Busch is an alcohol company that sells products under a
number of brands. The company sells popular beers like Budweiser,
Musch, Natural Light, Michelob Ultra and more, but also sells
non-beer alcohol products such as the Ritas brand products like
Lime-a-Rita and Rita spritzers.
According to a class action lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch, Ritas
products do not actually contain tequila, other distilled liquor or
wine as advertised. Instead, the products are "just flavored beer,"
plaintiffs claim.
"Reasonable consumers did not know, and had no reason to know, that
the Products were, and continue to be, falsely and deceptively
packaged," the Ritas class action lawsuit contends.
"Nowhere on the front, sides, or top panel of the packaging (the
consumer facing panels) does Defendant state that the Products do
not have distilled liquor or wine, or that the Products are
actually just flavored beers that taste like margaritas, mojitos or
wines."
Plaintiffs in the case say they wouldn't have purchased the
products or paid as much as they did if they had known the truth.
Anheuser-Busch hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a class
action settlement to resolve these allegations. The total
settlement amount hasn't been disclosed.
Under the terms of the Anheuser-Busch settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the products they purchased.
Payment amounts will vary depending on the product and pack size
purchased by the class member:
For 8-ounce cans, consumers can receive $0.30 for each purchased
four-pack or $0.60 for each purchased 24-pack
For 12-ounce bottles or cans, consumers can receive $0.15 for each
purchased four-pack, $0.25 for each purchased six-pack, $0.45 for
each purchased 12-pack and $0.85 for each purchased 24-pack
For 16-ounce cans, class members will receive $0.20 for each
four-pack or $0.30 for each six-pack.
For each single 22-ounce bottle, class members can receive $0.10
For 25-ounce cans, class members can receive $0.10 for a single can
or $0.15 for a two-pack
Any additional unlisted package configurations will result in
payments of $0.50
Class members with proof of purchase can collect maximum payments
of $21.25 per household based on the above specifications.
Class members without proof of purchase are limited to maximum
payments of $9.75 per household.
Consumers who purchased Lime-A-Rita or related products since Jan.
1, 2018, will also benefit from the settlement's injunctive relief.
Anheuser-Busch agreed to make changes to its marketing to better
inform consumers of what type of alcohol is in the Rita products.
Product packaging will contain the phrase "malt beverage" and the
Ritas website will include disclosures that the product "does not
contain distilled spirits." These disclosures will be made in
sufficiently large and bolded font. All injunctive relief will be
completed within six months of Dec. 2, 2022.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 11, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the Anheuser-Busch settlement is
scheduled for Dec. 2, 2022.
In order to receive benefits from the settlement, class members
must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 16, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased any Ritas products
(margarita products, spritzers and more) between Jan. 1, 2018, and
July 19, 2022. A full list of included products is available on the
settlement website.
Potential Award
Without proof of purchase $9.75 per household. Up to $21.25 per
household with proof of purchase
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase necessary, but maximum payout can only be
reached with proof of purchase.
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
12/16/2022
Case Name
Browning, et al., v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-00889-SRB,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Final Hearing
12/02/2022
Settlement Website
RitaSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Browning v. Anheuser-Busch Administrator
P.O. Box 5176
Portland, OR 97208-5176
info@RitasSettlement.com
888-905-0657
Class Counsel
Benjamin Heikali
Timothy J Peter
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
Tim E Dollar
DOLLAR BURNS BECKER & HERSHEWE L C
Defense Counsel
James F Bennett
Hannah F Preston
Adam J Simon
DOWD BENNETT LLP [GN]
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: November 22 Trial Set for Robocall Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklee Han, writing for RealTrends, reports that while the real
estate industry waits for the latest developments in the National
Association of Realtors' various anti-trust lawsuits, Anywhere is
preparing for its own day in court.
The real estate conglomerate had its request for reconsideration of
a class certification ruling in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
class action lawsuit denied "for lack of good cause under Civil
Local Rule 7-9," according to court documents filed on Aug. 18.
Anywhere filed the motion in late March.
After losing its bid for a summary judgement, Anywhere is headed to
trial in November with a pretrial conference set for November 10
and the trial set to begin on November 22. If held responsible,
Anywhere could be facing a fine of at least $225 million.
The class action suit was filed in 2019 in a U.S. District Court in
Northern California and centers on an alleged TCPA violation. In
the suit, plaintiffs contend they received unwanted, autodialed
calls from Coldwell Banker and NRT agents, despite being on the
National Do Not Call Registry.
"Companies like Defendant flagrantly ignores the Registry and
invade the privacy of consumers with unwanted calls," the suit
states.
Three separate classes have been certified in the suit. The first
class, deemed the "National Do Not Call Registry Nationwide" class,
consists of all persons in the U.S. "who received two or more calls
made by a [Defendant]-affiliated agent using a Mojo, PhoneBurner,
and/or Storm dialer in any 12-month period on a residential
landline or cell phone number that appeared on the National Do Not
Call Registry for at least 31 days for the time period beginning
June 11, 2015, to present."
The second class, known as the "National Internal Do Not Call"
class, is made up of anyone in the U.S. "who received, in any
12-month period, two or more calls promoting [Defendant's] services
and made by a [Defendant]-affiliated agent to their residential
landline or cell phone number, for the time period beginning June
11, 2015, to present."
The final class, termed the "National Artificial or Prerecorded
Message" class, includes anyone in the U.S. who received a call on
their residential telephone line or cell phone number with an
artificial or prerecorded message.
In total, the classes include more than 445,000 unique cellphone
numbers.
Requests for comment sent to lawyers for both the plaintiffs and
Anywhere were not immediately returned. [GN]
ASPEN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action OVer Phoenix Nursing Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Lum, writing for FOX10, reports that Aspen University's
Phoenix program remains under the microscope of the state nursing
board as the private, for-profit school has been on probation for
several months.
Now, a former student is suing.
FOX 10 Investigates reported in-depth on the major educational
concerns with the online learning program still falling short of
state standards.
A source close to the case says they've never seen a situation like
this, and a spokesperson with the U.S. Department of Education says
it's watching oversight actions taken by the Arizona State Board of
Nursing linked to Aspen University and what may impact its federal
student aid eligibility.
'. . . a lot of emotions'
Kristen Stewart worked as a veterinary nurse for 20 years, but as
the COVID-19 pandemic began, she decided to transition to human
medicine and applied to Aspen University's Bachelor of Science in
Nursing program.
"The benefits of Aspen was that there's a nights and weekends
program. I'm a single mom and I'm working full time. That's really
important because it works for my schedule. The other benefit to it
was cost," she said.
Stewart completed her prerequisites and was set to begin core
nursing classes on Feb. 15 of this year, but that never happened
for incoming students at both Phoenix campuses.
"There was a lot of emotions. Obviously upset. Some anger," Stewart
said.
Arizona's Board of Nursing had already launched an investigation
into Aspen University by this time.
Investigators reported Aspen failed to properly train new faculty
members and relied on "severely inadequate testing practices," in
addition to a lack of direct care clinical hours for students
preparing to become Arizona's next generation of nurses.
First-time pass rate falls short of Arizona law
Aspen University's glaring 2021 first-time pass rate of 58% on the
NCLEX, the national exam needed to become a nurse, was far below
the 80% mark required by Arizona law.
Admissions into the nursing program stopped as the board issued a
notice of charges.
"It was very, very disheartening to find out . . . about a week
before class was supposed to start, then we weren't moving
forward," Stewart said.
In April, Stewart filed a class action complaint against Aspen
Group, Inc., accusing the it of violating Arizona's Consumer Fraud
Act and unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit says Aspen made false promises and misrepresentations
of its program and hid deficiencies from students, like Stewart.
Before the three-year probation, there were about 700 students who
either completed pre-rec courses, were still taking them, or had
just enrolled.
Stewart eventually enrolled in another school, but says not all of
her credits from Aspen transferred with her.
"So I have had to retake some courses and you know, put in some
extra time redoing things that you know, I've already passed,"
Stewart said.
Meanwhile, her federal financial aid is being exhausted as she
spent around $15,000 in loans on tuition at Aspen.
"Essentially, my senior year, I will be out of funding," she
explained.
Stewart is suing Aspen on behalf of others in similar situations,
Arizonans who enrolled in the pre-nursing program and paid
tuition.
It's yet to be determined the exact size of the class.
Aspen's consent agreement with the nursing board says the program
must achieve an average of 80% on the NCLEX in 2022, but so far, it
hasn't.
"As of today, the year-to-date pass rate is 69.4%. Ninety-three out
of the 134 students who have passed," said Dr. David Hrabe,
education program administrator of the Arizona State Board of
Nursing, at a July 29 board meeting.
He's investigating Aspen University and describes a bleak situation
for the program.
"For Aspen to achieve 80% by year's end of 2022 which is consistent
with their consent agreement, students would need to be testing at
88% from now on in terms of first-time pass rate. With the adjusted
numbers, that's now 89%," Hrabe said.
Updated numbers in August show Aspen's first-time pass rate dropped
to 67% since the first quarter of the year.
An uncertain future
If the program fails to meet the mark, admissions could be
suspended indefinitely and the board can start the process of Aspen
fulfilling its obligations to existing students within two years
max.
Hrabe also brought up new allegations of Aspen accepting
applications from out-of-state students.
" . . . contract seen from a student in Georgia. There's some
information that we're pursuing around that particular situation,"
Hrabe said.
Aspen University's attorney Geoffrey Sturr responded, saying,
"Aspen will cooperate and continue to cooperate and provide
information in response to the RQ that's been received, and the
facts are very much in dispute, and we just ask the board to keep
an open mind until it receives a complete, investigative report."
Stewart says she's not giving up on her dream of being a nurse.
When asked if she feels betrayed by the university, she said, "Yeah
. . . I wouldn't be in this situation if it had been done
properly."
Aspen is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting
Commission (DEAC). The commission says it's also aware of the
program's issues and is working with Arizona's Board of Nursing and
private postsecondary education board to monitor the situation.
The commission released a statement saying, "DEAC is aware of the
issues regarding the BSN pre-nursing program and has been working
with Arizona's Department of Private Post-Secondary Schools and the
Arizona Board of Nursing to monitor the situation and to ensure
that the interests of students continue to be the priority." [GN]
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT: Tuttle Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J.Tuttle, an individual, and Dustin Collman, an individual;
on behalf of themselves and persons similarly situated v.
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT, INC. d/b/a MUSIC DIRECT, MOBILE FIDELITY,
MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB and/or MOFI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01081-JLR
(W.D. Wash., Aug. 2, 2022), is brought under the common law breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
("CFA"), and certification of a Washington Class under the
Washington Consumer Protection/Unfair Business Practices Act, as a
result of the Defendant's deceptive marketing of triple analog
recordings.
One of the Defendant's product lines consists of analog recordings
that are made without the use of digital processing, i.e., by
duplicating the original analog master recordings using only analog
processes. Such recordings are referred to a "triple analog," and
are highly valued by high-end audiophiles and collectors. The
Defendant advertised and otherwise represented that many of its
recordings were "triple analog," when in fact they were not. The
Plaintiffs and members of the putative class reasonably relied upon
these representations, purchased the products, and were damaged
thereby. Alternatively, the Defendant advertising and other
statements about the analog characteristics of its products were
deceptive and misleading and were the proximate cause of the
Plaintiffs' and
the Class's damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased directly from Music Direct deceptively
advertised triple analog recordings.
Audiophile Music Direct, Inc. is a producer and seller of vinyl
music recordings[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
19929 Ballinger Way NE, #200
Seattle, WA 98155
Phone: (206) 621-6566
Email: dturner@badgleymullins.com
B&B ITALIA USA: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B&B Italia, U.S.A.,
Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. B&B Italia, U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07073-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
B&B Italia -- https://www.bebitalia.com/en-us/ -- is a leader of
high quality modern furniture, contemporary furniture, outdoor
furniture and furnishing for home and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BASIC FUN INC: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Basic Fun, Inc. The
case is styled as Veronica Troche, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Basic Fun, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07091 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Basic Fun, Inc. -- https://www.basicfun.com/ -- develops and
markets novelty and impulse toys. The Company offers collectibles,
small dolls, retro and science toys, pre-school, youth electronics,
and construction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BAYER CORPORATION: Newman Sues Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------
Tanysha Newman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No.
7:22-cv-07087 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022), is brought arising out of
Defendants' false advertising of their One A Day chewable
supplements.
The Defendants' claim behind their One A Day line of supplements is
that the consumer need only consume one supplement per day to get
the full nutritional benefit. While this may be true for
Defendants' capsule supplements, it is not true for their "gummies"
or chewable line of One A Day supplements (hereinafter referred to
as "Chewables"), which require the consumer to take two or more
supplements per day to get the full nutritional benefit.
Because the One A Day Chewables are labelled as "One A Day," the
Plaintiff and Class Members (as defined below) are misled into
believing that they only need to take one Chewable per day to
receive the full nutritional value when they actually have to take
two or more. This means the bottles of Chewables purchased by
consumers last half as long as advertised. The Plaintiff and Class
Members are essentially paying full retail price for half the
amount of supplements.
As a result of the express and implied misleading messages conveyed
by their marketing campaign, the Defendants have caused Plaintiff
and Class Members to purchase a product that does not perform as
represented. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers
have been harmed in the amount they paid, or overpaid, for the
Chewables, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the chewable variants of the Defendants'
One A Day Multi+ Hair, Skin & Nails and One A Day Women's Key Vital
Function VitaCraves from a Walmart, Target, and Dollar General in
New York.
The Defendants advertise, market, and distribute the chewables to
thousands of customers across the country and in the state of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
BED BATH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bed Bath
& Beyond Corporation (NASDAQ: BBBY) common stock between March 25,
2022 and August 18, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. BBBY operates a nationwide chain of retail stores.
If you would like more information about Bed Bath & Beyond
Corporation's misconduct, click here.
What is this Case About: Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation (BBBY)
Insiders Manipulated the Company to Enable an Aggressive Pump &
Dump Scheme
According to the complaint, defendant Michael Cohen has a history
of employing pump and dump schemes to ignite meme stocks to
jaw-dropping heights. In March 2022, Cohen's corporation, RC
Ventures LLC, bought a nearly 10% stake in BBBY. Thereafter, BBBY
gave Cohen three board seats. For four months, BBBY stock climbed
from its lowest price of $4.38 per share on July 1, 2022, to $30.00
per share on August 17, 2022.
On August 16, 2022, Cohen filed a Schedule 13D with the SEC
indicating he beneficially owned 9,450,100 shares - approximately
11.8% of the shares outstanding - of BBBY. However, the Schedule
13D filing was materially false and constitutes a false written
filing because Cohen sold most of the 9,450,100 shares when the
filing was submitted and intended to create a buying frenzy of BBBY
stocks so he could finish selling his shares at an artificially
inflated price. Cohen also filed Form 144 on paper providing notice
of his intent to sell up to all his shares and additional call
options. This filing was not disclosed to the public until the
market closed the next day, August 17, 2022, at 5:07 pm, when Cohen
finished dumping his BBBY shares. Right after the disclosure of the
filing, BBBY shares tumbled after hours from a record high $30.00
per share to around $22.5 per share.
On August 18, 2022, Cohen reported he had sold all his shares as of
August 16, 2022. On this news, BBBY stock fell 45%. Over the next
several days, the stock fell from its August 17 high to close at
$8.78 per share on August 23, 2022. The Company lost more than $800
million in market capitalization while insiders profited at least
$110 million from their sales on August 16 & 17.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation
between March 25, 2022 and August 18, 2022, you may ask the court
to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation settles or to receive free
alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for
Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
BIG HEART: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNIE ROPER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIG HEART PET
BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00406-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order granting joint
stipulation to extend case schedule as follows:
1. The date set for the Close of Non-Expert Fact Discovery
shall be continued from August 9, 2022 to October 15,
2022;
2. The deadline for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification shall be continued from August 31, 2022 to
November 15, 2022;
3. The deadline for Defendant’s Class Certification
Opposition shall be continued from November 1, 2022 to
December 16, 2022;
4. The deadline for Plaintiff’s Class Certification Reply
shall be continued from January 18, 2023 to February 17,
2023; and
5. The date set for the Class Certification Hearing shall be
continued from March 10, 2023 at 9:30 AM to April 7, 2023
at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe.
Big Heart is an American company that manufacturers, distributes
and markets branded pet food and other products for the U.S. retail
market.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wyrJxN at no extra charge.[CC]
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV25022
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Aug. 3, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for its illegal wiretapping of their
electronic communications with the Defendant's website
www.bjs.com.
Unbeknownst to visitors to the Website, the Defendant has secretly
deployed "keystroke monitoring" software that Defendant uses to
surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications
(including keystrokes and mouse clicks) of all visitors to its
Website. The Defendant neither informs visitors nor seeks their
express or implied consent prior to this wiretapping. The Defendant
has violated and continues to violate the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"), entitling the Plaintiff and Class Members to
relief pursuant thereto, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website within the past year.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation and does business and
affects commerce within the state of California and with California
residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
BLITT AND GAINS: Heinz Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blitt and Gains,
P.C., et al. The case is styled as William Heinz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blitt and Gains,
P.C., Oliphant Financial, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02172-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Blitt and Gaines, P.C. -- https://blittandgaines.com/ -- is a full
service collections law firm dedicated to providing our clients
with best-in-class representation while working diligently with
customers to promptly and amicably resolve their matters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
BLOCK INC: Faces Class Action Over Cash App Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Brewster, writing for Forbes, reports that on the same day a
former security chief blew the whistle on what he alleged were
"egregious" security failings at Twitter, a lawsuit was filed
claiming that another business founded by billionaire Jack Dorsey
was also "negligent" in protecting user data. Block, Inc., which
owns Cash App and Square payments technologies, was sued in a class
action on Aug. 23 related to a December 2021 breach of Cash App
Investing, in which 8.2 million users' data was stolen by an
employee who still had access to company reports even after they
departed.
The lawsuit's central allegation is that the employee was able to
take the data because of poor security practices. According to
Block's disclosure of the hack in April 2022, the ex-staffer was
able to grab reports from Cash App Investing, Cash App's investing
feature allows users to easily buy and sell stocks through the
popular payment tool. The reports included users' full name and
brokerage account number -- a unique identification number
associated with a customer's stock activity. For some customers,
the leaked data also included brokerage portfolio value, holdings
and stock trading activity for a single trading day. No passwords
or Social Security numbers were lost.
The lawsuit is now linking this data breach with subsequent theft
from users' Cash App accounts. Two Cash App Investing users, who
are the class action's main plaintiffs argue that after the breach,
users were subjected to "a wide range of fraudulent activities" on
their Cash App accounts.
One of the plaintiffs, Michelle Salinas, a user from Texas, said
she had multiple fraudulent transactions on her Cash App account
following the December 2021 incident, all of them for Amazon
purchases that totaled $50. She said she had not been reimbursed by
Block. Another plaintiff, Chicagoan Raymel Washington, said he had
seen nearly $395 in unauthorized transactions occurring on his Cash
App in June 2022. He, too, was unable to get money back from Cash
App, according to the suit.
However, the suit does not provide evidence linking those thefts
directly to the 2021 hack. According to Vice, other Cash App users
have come up against the same problems after their accounts were
hacked.
Block disclosed the hack in an SEC filing four months after the
original breach, and the Aug. 23 class action raised issues with
this gap. "Block offered no explanation for the four-month delay
between the initial discovery of the breach and the belated
notification to affected customers, which resulted in plaintiffs
and class members suffering harm they otherwise could have avoided
had a timely disclosure been made," the suit said.
The suit lands less than a month after Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.,
a stockholder rights law firm, announced it was investigating the
breach and whether or not Block had effectively protected user data
as it had promised.
Some of the accusations leveled at Block are similar to those
lodged by noted security expert Peiter "Mudge" Zatko against his
former employer Twitter in a whistle-blower complaint. Most
notably, both Block and Twitter were accused of failing to lock
down user data from insiders. Both also allegedly failed to comply
with Federal Trade Commission guidelines on securing customer
data.
Block did not respond to a request for comment on the class
action.
After the Washington Post and CNN reported Zatko's allegations on
Aug. 22, Twitter said he had been fired "for ineffective leadership
and poor performance" and that his whistle-blower report "is
riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies and lacks important
context." They claimed Zatko's "allegations and opportunistic
timing appear designed to capture attention and inflict harm on
Twitter, its customers and its shareholders." The company didn't go
into detail on what those inaccuracies were.
Though two companies he founded are under fire over their security
practices, Dorsey remains one of tech's most influential
billionaires. According to Forbes, he is worth just under $5
billion, largely on the back of Block rather than Twitter, of which
he owns just over 2%. He owns nearly 10% of Block, which currently
has a market cap of $42 billion—$12 billion more than Twitter.
[GN]
BLOCK INC: Salinas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Salinas and Raymel Washington, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BLOCK, INC. and CASH APP
INVESTING, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-04823-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23,
2022), is brought for their failure to exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding consumer information in connection with a
massive December 2021 data breach (the "Data Breach") that resulted
in the unauthorized public release of the personally identifiable
information of 8.2 million current and former Cash App Investing
customers, including Plaintiffs' and proposed "Class" members' full
names and brokerage account numbers (which are the personal
identification numbers associated with Cash App Investing
customers' stock activity on the Cash App Investing platform), the
value and holdings of brokerage portfolios, and trading activity
(collectively, the "PII" or "Private Information").
According to Block's disclosure of the Data Breach, a former
employee who had access to the Private Information belonging to
Cash App Investing users during his tenure downloaded the data
without Defendants' authorization. Cash App Investing is a stock
trading platform by Block (formerly Square, Inc.). Accordingly, to
the world of cybercriminals, Cash App Investing's customer list,
which was in Defendants' possession and control at the time of the
Data Breach, is highly valuable. By accessing Cash App Investing
customers' PII entrusted to Defendants, hackers can gain access to
Cash App Investing users' portfolios and account funds and use
those funds to commit a wide range of fraudulent activities against
the user, as was done here against the Plaintiffs.
The security of Defendants' customers' Private Information is
accordingly of the utmost importance. One instance of a former
employee accessing, exfiltrating, and misusing and/or releasing for
future misuse Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information to
fellow cybercriminals can lead to substantial financial losses. As
Defendants acknowledge, "Future costs associated with this incident
are difficult to predict." These costs will not only impact
Defendants' bottom line but, more importantly, the millions of Cash
App Investing users whose Private Information is now in the hands
of cybercriminals.
Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs' and Class members'
Private Information has been compromised and their financial
accounts are no longer secure, including their Cash App Investing
portfolio. The Defendants understand the seriousness of the misuse
of customers' PII, and purport to address these issues. While the
exact reason(s) for the Data Breach remain unclear, there is no
doubt that Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and
Class members' Private Information and such negligent failures
resulted in the injuries alleged herein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs became Cash App Investing users.
Block, Inc. is the parent company of Defendant Cash App Investing,
LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Delayed Flights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Giacomo Amati of simpleflying.com report that a British Airways
flight from Naples to London Heathrow turned into a proper
nightmare for 180 passengers when the flight was delayed by more
than 24 hours, leaving customers stressed, tired, and angry at the
airline. So much so, that some are now reported to be starting a
class action.
On August 17, British Airways flight BA2613 from Naples to London
Heathrow was scheduled for 9:30. According to FlightRadar24.com,
the flight was operated by G-EUYK, a 12-year-old A320-200. One of
the passengers, the Italian lawyer Paola Capobianco, told the
Italian daily newspaper "La Repubblica" about how the events played
out.
Everything started as a routine flight; passengers boarded the
aircraft, and the cabin was prepared for take-off. However, the
plane did not leave its parking position. The captain made several
announcements, stating there was a problem with the Electronic
Flight Instrument System (EFIS) and that the aircraft was therefore
not allowed to leave.
At 12:14, passengers de-boarded the plane to have lunch in the
terminal but were asked to leave their carry-ons onboard. At 14:50,
everyone boarded the aircraft again; however, passengers reported
engines were repeatedly turned on and off. More announcements were
made from the cockpit, but were incoherent. The flight crew
interchangeably indicated technical malfunctioning and traffic
congestion over London Heathrow as the reasons for the continuous
delay.
At 17:00, passengers were eventually asked to de-board the A320 --
the flight had been canceled. After an hour spent talking to ground
staff, customers were informed they had been re-accommodated on a
British Airways flight leaving on August 18th, at 12:30,
accumulating a delay of more than 24 hours. The flight would be
operated by the same aircraft, the 20-year-old A320-200. Hotel
rooms had been booked in Caserta; a 30-minute drive from Naples.
Oddly, the lawyer stated the flight status appeared as "in-flight"
on the airline's website.
On August 19, the chaos started at the check-in counter, where the
12:30 replacement flight overlapped with the scheduled 9:30 BA2613
flight. After two hours spent queueing at check-in, boarding began.
However, at 13:05, the A320 had not moved from its parking
position. The stress level in the cabin reached such a point that a
cabin crew member reportedly started crying.
Some customers asked to disembark; however, this went against
safety protocol, and the captain denied the request. At that point,
Ms. Capobianco and other passengers contacted the airport police.
Moments later, the captain announced the aircraft was cleared for
take-off. According to data from FlightRadar24.com, the flight
landed at Heathrow at 16:22 on August 18th, with a colossal delay
of approximately 29 hours.
Things got worse
Such a delay meant many passengers lost their connecting flight,
causing the unpleasant process of finding alternatives and asking
for refunds at the airport counters.
For Ms. Capobianco and her group of friends, the nightmare was far
from over. The lawyer and two friends were supposed to board the
22:30 flight to Mexico City. Once at the gate, however, the ground
staff denied boarding to the group of friends, stating there had
been an error in issuing the tickets on the part of British
Airways. As if this was not enough, their luggage had never left
Naples.
Hopeless and exhausted, the friends decided to fly back to Naples.
However, they are determined not to let the airline get away with
the poor service delivered; a class action against British Airways
has indeed been initiated by Ms. Capobianco and some of the
passengers of flight BA2613.
The incident happened at a very inconvenient moment for the British
flag carrier; over the past few months, the airline has had to deal
with several disruptions, ranging from flight delays to
cancellations, lost luggage, and other unpleasant passenger
experiences. Mainly, pent-up demand for air travel caused Heathrow,
one of Europe's busiest hubs, to fail in handling the rapidly
increasing volumes of passengers, to the point that British Airways
had to cap the sale of short-haul flights from the airport in an
attempt to limit the unacceptable number of disruptions.
An airline representative told Simple Flying that a technical
malfunction caused the unfortunate disruption and that the airline
would never allow one of its aircraft to take off unless
undoubtedly sure the plane could fly safely. Indeed, in a note to
the passengers of flight BA2613, British Airways stressed how the
safety of passengers and crew is always the airline's top priority.
[GN]
CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Probes over Alleged Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF continues its investigation into Canoo Inc.
(NasdaqGS: GOEV, GOEVW) f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp.
IV.
On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public
entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity
named "Canoo." On March 29, 2021, post-market, the Company
announced its 4Q2020 and full year financial results, disclosing
significant changes to its business model, previously touted by the
Company to investors, deemphasizing its engineering services
business and no longer focusing on its subscription-based
business.
Thereafter, the Company and certain of its executives were sued in
a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws, which remains ongoing.
KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Canoo's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Canoo's shareholders
or otherwise violated state or federal laws.
If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Canoo shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goev/ to learn more.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California, Louisiana and
New Jersey.
Contacts Info:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel: 877-515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
CAPITAL READY MIX: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Ready Mix
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Margarita Delgado, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Capital Ready Mix Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00325517-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug.
22, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Capital Ready Mix -- https://capitalreadymixconcrete.com/ -- is a
family owned business dedicated to the production and delivery of
quality concrete coupled with prompt service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
CARVANA CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Carvana Co. (NYSE: CVNA),
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP), Tuya, Inc. (NYSE: TUYA),
and LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST). Stockholders have
until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.
Carvana Co. (NYSE: CVNA)
Class Period: May 6, 2020-June 24, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 3, 2022
On June 24, 2022, Barron's published an article entitled "Carvana
Sought to Disrupt Auto Sales. It Delivered Undriveable Cars,"
detailing, among other things, that: "[i]n its haste to seize
market share from competitors, Carvana was selling cars faster than
it could get them registered to their new owners" and "at one point
forming an ad hoc unit known as the 'undriveable-car task force'";
"[i]n other instances… Carvana sold cars before it had title to
the vehicles, an action that is illegal in many states where the
company does business"; and "state regulators across the U.S. have
been subjecting [Carvana] to suspensions or increased oversight
over registration delays and its practice of issuing multiple
temporary license plates from states where it has dealer's
licenses, instead of promptly providing permanent ones." For
example, the article detailed that "Pennsylvania officials
suspended [Carvana's] license to issue temporary permits at its two
vending-machine towers in that state… citing late document
submittals, 'improper issuance and verification of temporary
Pennsylvania plates in other states,' and other violations."
On this news, Carvana's share price fell approximately 21% over the
next two trading days, damaging investors.
The Carvana class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Carvana faced serious, ongoing issues with
documentation, registration, and title with many of its vehicles;
(ii) as a result, Carvana was issuing unusually frequent temporary
plates; (iii) thus, Carvana was violating laws and regulations in
many existing markets; (iv) consequently, Carvana risked its
ability to continue business and/or expand its business in existing
markets; (v) as such, Carvana was at an increased risk of
governmental investigation and action; (vi) Carvana was in
discussion with state and local authorities regarding the
above-stated business tactics and issues; and (vii) Carvana was
facing imminent and ongoing regulatory actions including license
suspensions, business cessation, and probation in several states
and counties including in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and North Carolina.
For more information on the Carvana class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CVNA
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP)
Class Period: June 25, 2021-August 13, 2021 or pursuant to the
Company's July 2, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2022
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose that the FDA had, prior to the filing of the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, imposed a clinical hold, and in fact,
contained statements indicating that it had not. Given that the
Offering closed on July 2, 2021, more than thirty (30) days after
the Company submitted the IND applications for its two
immunotherapy product candidates, investors were assured that no
clinical hold had been issued and clinical trials would commence.
The Company, however, had received communications from the FDA on
June 16 and 17, 2021, informing it that the FDA was placing the IND
applications for its two candidate products on clinical hold. The
Offering Documents failed to disclose this information, instead
representing that clinical testing was expected to proceed in the
third quarter of 2021. Clinical testing did not proceed in the
third quarter of 2021, nor was it likely given the FDA's imposition
of a clinical hold.
For more information on the Kiromic class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/KRBP
Tuya, Inc. (NYSE: TUYA)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company's March 18, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 11, 2022
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tuya's China-based customers engaged in a
scheme to manipulate reviews and product offerings on Amazon, in
violation of the -commerce platform's terms of use. A consumer
investigation that occurred prior to the IPO uncovered organized
fake review scams perpetrated by the Company's clients which
included 200,000 fake Amazon accounts that posted 13 million fake
reviews. The Company was likely to suffer significant business
challenges if its base of clients were barred from selling on the
Amazon platform. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO
period. When the market learned the truth about Tuya, investors
suffered damages.
For more information on the Tuya class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TUYA
LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company's June 11, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 11, 2022
On or about June 11, 2021, LifeStance conducted its IPO, issuing 46
million shares at $18 per share.
On August 11, 2021, LifeStance announced its financial results for
second quarter 2021, which ended just days after the IPO. The
Company reported a net loss of $70 million and also disclosed that
its operating expenses had more than tripled during the second
quarter. LifeStance stated that it had experienced a significant,
negative "recent change in clinician retention levels."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.16, or 46%, to
close at $11.71 per share on August 12, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.
Then, on November 8, 2021, LifeStance released its third quarter
2021 financial results, disclosing that "[c]linician retention
[had] stabilized to approximately 80% annualized in the third
quarter," and that the Company was having to increase spending on
"enhanced clinician engagement and continued support for workplace
and work-life flexibility."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.10, or 24%, to
close at $9.73 per share on November 9, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
Then, on March 10, 2022, LifeStance reported its fiscal 2021
results, stating that a recent study had shown that three quarters
of mental health patients prefer in-person services and that
through 2021, telehealth services trended downwards. Additionally,
the Company stated that it would be reducing the number of brick
and mortar facilities that it would be building in the immediate
future in order to increase its profitability.
At the time the complaint was filed, LifeStance's common stock has
traded as much as 73% below than the IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the number of virtual
visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance was decreasing
as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining the
Company's out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (2) that the
percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing
LifeStance was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being
lifted, thereby causing the Company's operating expenses to
increase substantially; (3) that LifeStance had lost a large number
of physicians due to burn-out and, as a result, its physician
retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% highlighted
in the Registration Statement and the Company had been expending
additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less productive
than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; 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.
For more information on the LifeStance class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/LFST
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Tel:(212) 355-4648 [GN]
CELSIUS NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of Celsius Financial Products, including CEL Tokens,
Earn Rewards high-interest accounts, and/or Celsius Loan products,
between February 9, 2018, and June 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), against Celsius Network LLC ("Celsius"), Celsius Lending
LLC, Celsius KeyFi LLC (collectively, the "Celsius Entities") and
its executives Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi "Daniel" Leon, David
Barse, and Alan Jeffrey Carr (together, "Defendants"), of the
important September 13, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
If you purchased Celsius Financial Products, including CEL Tokens,
Earn Rewards high-interest accounts, and/or Celsius Loan products
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the Celsius class action, go
to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7586 for
information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than September 13, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
Investors are encouraged to select qualified counsel with a track
record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices
do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer
recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities
class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or
partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise
in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Defendants violated
provisions of the Securities Act by selling non-exempt securities
without registering it. The complaint alleges that Celsius and
Individual Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by
also participating in Celsius' failure to register the Celsius
Financial Products. The complaint alleges that the Defendants
violated provisions of the New Jersey Common Law by possessing the
monetary value of Celsius Financial Products of inflated value
which rightfully belongs to the Plaintiff and members of the
Class.
Also according to the lawsuit, Defendants violated provisions of
the Exchange Act by carrying out a plan, scheme, and course of
conduct that Celsius intended to and did deceive retail investors
and thereby caused them to purchase Celsius Financial Products at
artificially inflated prices; endorsed false statements they knew
or recklessly should have known were material misleading, and they
made untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827 [GN]
CENTENE CORP: Duff, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY DUFF, individually
and on behalf of R.D., a minor, et. al., v. CENTENE CORPORATION, ET
AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-00750-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the following Class and
Sub-Class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3):
-- Class
"All persons who were insured by the Defendants' Ambetter
insurance product offered in Ohio through the Marketplace
from September 9, 2015, to the present;" and
-- Sub-Class
"All class members who, during the class period, had a
health insurance claim denied for an out-of-network
provider despite the provider being listed as in-network
on the Defendants' provider directory."
This litigation involves the failure of the Defendant insurance
companies including Centene Corporation, Centene Management Co.,
LLC, and Buckeye Community Health Plan, Inc., to provide the
Plaintiffs and Class Members with health insurance coverage
consistent with the coverage advertised, published, purchased, and
required under state and federal law.
The Plaintiffs, who purchased health insurance from the Defendants
on the Exchange pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, seek to
represent a class of Ohio consumers who, like them, purchased
health insurance coverage which failed to offer the coverage and
benefits Defendants promoted and advertised.
Contrary to the Defendants' contract and representations, the
Defendants failed to provide an adequate, accurate, and
up-to-date directory of in-network providers and, at times, denied
valid claims to pay provider bills by asserting those providers
listed in the directory were, in fact, out-of-network.
The Plaintiffs' breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and
breach of fiduciary duty claims, where damages to the individual
are small but damages in the aggregate to the class are
substantial, are appropriate for class certification.
Centene is a publicly traded managed care company based in St.
Louis, Missouri. It serves as an intermediary for
government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 8,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wyqq1R
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melanie S. Bailey, Esq.
Jessica L. Powell, Esq.
BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE
HERSH & JARDINE PC
201 East Fifth Street, Suite 1340
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 852-5600
Facsimile: (513) 852-5611
E-mail: mbailey@burgsimpson.com
jpowell@burgsimpson.com
CHIC SOUL: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chic Soul, LLC. The
case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Chic Soul, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07217
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chic Soul -- https://chicsoul.com/ -- is a one stop shop for
boutique plus size clothing offering the latest trends for curvy,
confident, chic women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Unmetered Water Service Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
city of Chicago has wrongly refused to provide refunds to people
who paid online for their unmetered water service in advance, as
the city required, according to a new class action lawsuit.
On Aug. 16, attorney Paul Castiglione and others with The Khowaja
Law Firm and the Law Offices of James X. Bormes, both of Chicago,
and the firm of Kerkonian Dajani, of Evanston, filed suit in Cook
County Circuit Court against the city.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Janusz
Grabowski, now of northwest suburban Mt. Prospect, and formerly of
Chicago.
The complaint seeks to expand the action to include potentially
thousands of others who, like Grabowski, allegedly are owed unpaid
refunds by the city.
The complaint centers on the city's program for water customers who
receive unmetered water service.
Chicago offers water service under two different methods. For
residents living in homes with water meters, the city bills for
water actually used.
However, for other residents whose homes lack water meters, the
city requires them to pay bills which include certain fixed
charges, including a "charge based on the rateable value of the
home." Further, the city requires some of those unmetered customers
to prepay for their water to maintain service.
The city offers all customers the opportunity to pay for their
water service online or by phone, using credit or debit cards, or
by electronic check.
The complaint alleges that under the city's unmetered water service
program, customers who prepay for water service should receive
refunds if they move out of the unmetered home before the end of
the period for which they prepaid for water service.
However, the complaint alleges the city has refused to provide
those refunds to customers, like Grabowski, who allegedly paid for
the water service electronically.
The complaint asserts the city allegedly has refused to accept
credit or debit card statements as proof the prepaid water bill was
actually paid. Instead, the complaint asserts the city demands a
canceled check to prove payment was made and a refund is due.
"The City's requirement that an account holder who prepaid via
electronic check or credit/debit card submit a canceled check as
proof to obtain a refund has therefore created a legally untenable
'Catch-22' situation," the complaint said. "Those who prepay for
water service via electronic check or credit/debit card, one of the
City's acceptable methods of payment, and then close their water
utility accounts or end services cannot obtain a refund for such
service without the kind of written proof that an electronic check
or credit/debit card payment does not generate."
According to the complaint, Grabowski unsuccessfully has sought a
refund of $102 since December 2021, when he relocated from Chicago
to Mt. Prospect.
The lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include anyone else to
whom the city has allegedly also improperly denied refunds for
prepaid water services since Aug. 16, 2017.
The complaint indicates the class of additional plaintiffs could
include potentially thousands of current and former Chicago city
residents.
The lawsuit seeks court orders requiring the city to issue refunds,
and to block the city from denying such refunds going forward.
The complaint further seeks unspecified "equitable and monetary"
damages, including refunds and interest, for Grabowski and other
class members, plus attorney fees. [GN]
CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE: D. B. Sues Over Relocation Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
D. B. as conservator for JOHN DOE 1; C.C. as guardian for JANE DOE
1; JOHN DOE 2; and JANE DOE 2 on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE, in her
official capacity as Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; TOMAS
ARAGON in his official capacity as Director of the California
Department of Public Health; XAVIER BECERRA in his official
capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; DOES 1–30, Case No. 4:22-cv-04501-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug.
1, 2022), id brought against the Defendants' action in imposing the
Relocation Plan on Laguna Honda which harms all class members in
the same manner, causing the transfer or discharge of residents in
a hasty and dangerous manner that jeopardizes their lives, deprives
them of their substantive and procedural due process rights, and
the statutory protections afforded to them by Federal and State
law.
Federal and State agencies recently ordered San Francisco's Laguna
Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center to relocate its nearly 700
residents by mid-September. They must go, no matter their medical
condition, or financial or social safety net. Some have already
become homeless. Eight residents have died following their
relocation. As this tragedy unfolds, the Federal and State agencies
are also requiring the hospital to undertake a recertification
process intended to reduce any future patient population. As it is,
skilled nursing beds are in critically short supply.
Laguna Honda has a storied history, going back to the Gold Rush
days of 1866, when it started as an almshouse for the poor. Today,
it continues to serve the poor and others in need of good care. It
takes patients from San Francisco General Hospital, people
suffering trauma from accidents or violence, and those with
dementia, Alzheimer's, hospice, or end-of-life needs. In today's
world, its residents frequently include those with substance abuse
problems, which adds to the challenge of their care. A new Laguna
Honda was rebuilt and certified in 2010 as the first green hospital
in California. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Laguna Honda's record
of prevention was exemplary, especially when compared to other
nursing homes.
Despite its achievements, the Federal government, under the
auspices of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS")
and in conjunction with the State of California Department of
Public Health ("CDPH" or "the State"), ordered Laguna Honda to
close and relocate all patients by September 13, 2022. After that,
CMS will no longer provide the Medicare and Medicaid funding
necessary to keep it running. CMS and the State are requiring the
hospital to be re-certified, just as if it were brand new, with
additional requirements, and to reduce the number of patients the
facility can serve in the future.
As it is, Laguna Honda represents the bulk of the available skilled
nursing beds in San Francisco. There are few, if any, other
alternatives in the Bay Area or even the State of California. To
add to the urgency, most private facilities limit available beds
for the poor, preferring a wealthier clientele. The isolated
deficiencies at Laguna Honda that led CMS to impose closure and
relocation involved small fraction of patients and were
correctable. There is an array of remedies that CMS could have
invoked to address those alleged violations which would not cause
the vast displacement of poor and fragile people. In short, the
draconian actions by CMS and the State are illegal, unnecessary,
and cruel, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current patients of Laguna Honda.
CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE, sued in her official capacity, is the
Administrator of CMS, a division of DHHS responsible for
administering Medicare, Medicaid and other health-related
programs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louise H. Renne, Esq.
Ruth M. Bond, Esq.
Rafal Ofierski, Esq.
Imran M. Dar, Esq.
Shajuti Hossain, Esq.
RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 848-7200
Facsimile: (415) 848-7230
Email: lrenne@publiclawgroup.com
rbond@publiclawgroup.com
rofierski@publiclawgroup.com
idar@publiclawgroup.com
shossain@publiclawgroup.com
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cirque Du Soleil
Holding USA, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Cirque Du Soleil
Holding USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07088 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cirque du Soleil -- http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/-- is a Canadian
entertainment company and the largest contemporary circus producer
in the world..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CM SCHOOL SUPPLY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CM School Supply,
Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. CM School Supply, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-07174 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CM School Supply -- https://shopcmss.com/ -- was founded by a
teacher for teachers offering comprehensive selection of the latest
educational materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
CMFG LIFE INSURANCE: Abel Sues Over ERISA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Christine Abel, Steven Auld, and David Pennington, individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on
behalf of the CUNA MUTUAL 401(K) PLAN FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
v. CMFG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CMFG LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; THE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE OF THE CUNA MUTUAL 401(K) PLAN FOR NON-REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00449 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 19, 2022), is brought
against the Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
As of December 31, 2020, the Plan had 4,461 participants with
account balances and assets totaling approximately $865 million,
placing it in the top 0.2% of all defined contribution plans by
plan size. Defined contribution plans with substantial assets, like
the Plan, have significant bargaining power and the ability to
demand low-cost administrative and investment management services
within the marketplace for administration of defined contribution
plans and the investment of defined contribution assets. The
marketplace for defined contribution retirement plan services is
well-established and can be competitive when fiduciaries of defined
contribution retirement plans act in an informed and prudent
fashion.
The Defendants maintain the Plan, and are responsible for
selecting, monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that
provide investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative
services. The Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, and, as such,
owe specific duties to the Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries, including obligations to act for the exclusive
benefit of participants, ensure that the investment options offered
through the Plan are prudent and diverse, and ensure that Plan
expenses are fair and reasonable in relation the services
obtained.
The Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan.
The Defendants selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified poorly
performing investments instead of offering more prudent alternative
investments that were readily available at the time the Defendants
selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class
Period. Since the Defendants have discretion to select the
investments made available to participants, the Defendants'
breaches are the direct cause of the losses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of CMFG and former participants
in the Plan.
CMFG provides insurance products and services. CMFG offers
collateral protection, cyber and security incident, mortgage
property and business liability, workers compensation, auto and
home, and life insurance solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sarah E. Siskind, Esq.
Elizabeth Eberle, Esq.
MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C.
44 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 803
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 255-5200
Facsimile: (608) 255-5380
Email: beberle@lawmbg.com
ssiskind@lawmbg.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd.
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: kctang@millershah.com
COAST DENTAL: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA DAVIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COAST DENTAL
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00941-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting 90-day extension
of time, to and including November 24, 2022, for Plaintiff to file
her Motion for Class Certification, along with any other deadlines
the Court deems appropriate to extend.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit in state
court on March 14, 2022. The Defendant removed to this Court on
April 21, 2022. On May 13, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the
Plaintiff's original complaint.
On May 24, 2022, the Court entered the Fast Track Case Management
and Scheduling Order, which the deadline for Class Certification as
August 26, 2022. On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First
Amended Complaint, adding an additional claim. Therein, Plaintiff
pleads claims for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act (FTSA), individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons.
The Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on
July 1, 2022, arguing the FTSA is unconstitutional, and the
complaint otherwise fails to state a claim. On July 13, 2022,
Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order to Stay or Bifurcate
Discovery, which sought a stay of discovery until the pending
motion to dismiss was resolved or, in the alternative, bifurcation
of individual from class discovery.
On July 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to
the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and filed her opposition to
Defendant's motion to stay or bifurcate on July 29.
Coast Dental is a leading provider of comprehensive business
services and support to general dentistry practices.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3APcKSR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jake Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
Jacob Phillips, Esq.
3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: 407-603-6031
E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
ean@normandpllc.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 Ne 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
yaniv@markmigdal.com
eservice@markmigdal.com
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Wollerman Sues Over Misleading Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Wollerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-02169-NYW (D.
Colo., Aug. 23, 2022), Case No. 1:22-cv-00760 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 20,
2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's
false and misleading marketing practices with regards to its Salted
Caramel Almond Creamer under the Silk brand highlighting "4g
Protein" ("Product").
The Defendant markets the Product to consumers seeking protein from
dairy alternative beverages. The "4g Protein" is in large font and
stands out against the white background. Consumers will expect
that "4g Protein" refers to the protein content they will receive
from one serving. However, the Nutrition Facts reveals the standard
serving size is 1 tablespoon or 15 mL, which provides 1g of
protein.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. The value of
the Product that the Plaintiff purchased was materially less than
its value as represented by the Defendant. The Defendant sold more
of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the
absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the
expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff known the truth, she would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$4.99 per 32 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions.
The Defendant is a leading seller of organic and healthy
snacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure User Accounts From Hackers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Finextra reports that the world's largest crypto exchange,
Coinbase, is facing a Federal Class Action lawsuit over allegations
that it failed to secure user accounts from hackers and thieves.
The complaint filed by commercial trial attorneys at BraunHagey &
Borden LLP alleges that Coinbase misrepresents itself as having
never been hacked and that its digital wallets are secure. The
plaintiffs allege that Coinbase's account security system is
vulnerable to attack and that the platform has failed to prevent a
series of breaches that have caused significant user losses.
These latest breaches occurred less than a year after Coinbase
settled similar claims by the California Attorney General and paid
$300 million.
The suit allege that the company was indifferent to consumers'
losses. When victims sought help from Coinbase, it "routed them
through its automated complaint processing — a recursive loop of
impenetrable screens that prevented them from explaining their
situation to any human being and was incapable of redressing the
theft of their savings."
The suit is seek restitution, civil and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief, among other remedies.
Trial attorney Matt Borden, says: "Coinbase plays a valuable and
important role as a financial institution with billions of dollars
in custodial funds. It needs to take that role seriously as an
industry-leading platform used by ordinary consumers."
Coinbase has yet to comment on the allegations. [GN]
COINBASE INC: Aggarwal Sues Over Security Failures
--------------------------------------------------
Manish Aggarwal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COINBASE, INC. and COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-04829 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2022), is brought to hold the
Defendant accountable for security failures leading to the repeated
theft of ordinary customer accounts.
The Defendant holds billions of dollars in consumer savings, and
purports to safeguard those assets from robbery or theft. The
company exacts substantial fees and commissions for this service
and is one of the most highly valued cryptocurrency service
providers in the world. However, Coinbase does a poor job of
protecting its user accounts from unlawful intrusion and thievery.
And it does an even worse job of working to mitigate those thefts
after they occur--forcing ordinary consumers to navigate a faceless
and impenetrable automated "customer service" process that leads
nowhere. The Defendant is acutely aware of these problems and has
paid large fines to regulators. Yet the problems persist and
account holders like Plaintiff continue to be fleeced by hackers
with access to Coinbase's systems.
In April 2022, hackers gained access to the Plaintiff's Coinbase
account through no fault of his own and, after locking him out,
drained it of more than $200,000 of his family's hard- earned
savings. When the Plaintiff tried to alert Coinbase, the company
routed him through its automated complaint processing--a recursive
loop of impenetrable screens that prevented him from explaining his
situation to any human being and was incapable of redressing the
theft of his savings, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased several hundred thousand dollars-worth of
Bitcoin and opened an account with the Defendant.
Coinbase is the country's largest cryptocurrency investment
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Noah Hagey, Esq.
Matthew Borden, Esq.
Ronald J. Fisher, Esq.
J. Tobias Rowe, Esq.
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
351 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 599-0210
Facsimile: (415) 276-1808
Email: hagey@braunhagey.com
borden@braunhagey.com
fisher@braunhagey.com
rowe@braunhagey.com
- and -
Jonathan Kortmansky, Esq.
Pratik K. Raj Ghosh, Esq.
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
118 W 22nd Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (646) 829-9403
Facsimile: (646) 829-9403
Email: kortmansky@braunhagey.com
ghosh@braunhagey.com
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hystad Ceynar Files Suit in D. North Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental
Resources, Inc. The case is styled as Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC,
on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons v.
Continental Resources, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00139-DMT-CRH
(D.N.D., Aug. 24, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Continental Resources, Inc. -- https://www.clr.com/ -- is a
petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company
headquartered in Oklahoma City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Seth K. Jones, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Phone: (913) 563-6250
Email: george@bartonburrows.com
seth@bartonburrows.com
- and -
Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
Robert B. Stock, Esq.
VOGEL LAW FIRM (FARGO)
218 NP Avenue
PO Box 1389
Fargo, ND 58107-1389
Phone: (701) 237-6983
Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com
rbslitgroup@vogellaw.com
CORNERSTONE CAPITAL: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Capital,
Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Cornerstone Capital, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07238-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cornerstone Capital Group -- https://cornerstonecapinc.com/ -- is
an impact investing advisory firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Yamido Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Courtyard Management
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Arceli Yamido,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Courtyard Management Corporation doing business as The Clancy,
Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., Marriott International, Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22601366 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Aug. 19, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Courtyard Management Corporation operates as a chain of hotels. The
Company offers accommodation and dining services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
CVS HEALTH: Denial of Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
August 18, 2022, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a decision by the United
States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granting a
motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action
asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
(the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange against a health care and
pharmaceutical company (the "Company") and two of its senior
executives. City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers'
Retirement Trust, et. al. v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 21-1479
(1st Cir. Aug 18, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that, following the
Company's 2015 acquisition of another health care company (the
"Merger"), the Company's executives issued false statements and
misleading omissions about various post-Merger issues. In affirming
dismissal of the amended complaint, the First Circuit held that the
district court's assessment was "right on the mark" and that
"plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants made statements of
fact that were false when made or misleadingly incomplete in light
of the contemporaneous circumstances."
Plaintiffs alleged that, following the Merger, the Company began to
mismanage the newly acquired business, which allegedly resulted in
lost customers. Plaintiffs further alleged that the Company
concealed these alleged losses by issuing goodwill write-downs from
February 2016 to February 2019 that were purportedly too late in
relation to the Company's actual suffered losses. Plaintiffs also
alleged that the Company's senior management misled investors by
affirmatively misrepresenting or omitting material facts, which the
Court grouped into the following five categories: (1) alleged
representations about the "condition and financial performance" of
the newly acquired business; (2) alleged statements concerning the
Company's leadership position in the market; (3) alleged statements
overstating the Company's understanding of its newly-acquired
customers; (4) alleged statements concerning the Company's
realization of synergies as a result of the Merger, and (5) alleged
"boilerplate" statements about the risks the Company faced in the
newly-acquired business.
Addressing plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim, the Court noted that,
"despite its length, [the amended complaint] fails to allege
sufficiently specific facts about the state of [the Company's]
business at particular points in time to enable us to conclude that
any of the goodwill write-downs were too late or that any of the
defendants' alleged misstatements contradicted the state of that
business as it then stood." The Court also noted the district
court's emphasis on "the complaint's failure to juxtapose the
proffered reports of lost customers with what [the Company] was
disclosing at the time of those losses." Addressing the allegations
of customer losses, the Court found that only six of forty-six
customer-loss allegations attempted to place losses within specific
periods of time—and even then, "only in highly general terms."
The Court held that two of those allegations "cover[ed] such broad
swaths of time that they effectively provide no date limitation."
As to the other four allegations, which the Court characterized as
being painted "with only a slightly finer brush," the Court held
that only the first definitively occurred prior to the first
disclosed goodwill write-down, but the amended complaint provided
"no reason to think that that 2015 loss by itself was both material
and not offset by new business." As to the five categories of
alleged misstatements generally, the Court held that plaintiffs'
allegations either did not adequately allege that such statements
were either actually false or inconsistent with the Company's
disclosures. With respect to alleged omissions about the Company's
purported risks (by virtue of it issuing "boilerplate" statements
about the same), the Court held that plaintiffs did not plead
sufficient allegations to conclude that such risks would occur with
"near certainty[,]" thus requiring any further disclosure.
Moreover, the Court seized on "plaintiffs' concession that they 'do
not dispute anything about Defendants' accounting,' which
necessarily includes the figures included in the Company's goodwill
reports throughout the class period," which only "reinforces the
gap in their pleading."
Having affirmed the dismissal of the Section 10(b) claim, the First
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Section 20(a) claim,
explaining that the viability of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim
for control-person liability is contingent on their section 10(b)
claim. Accordingly, the Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs'
20(a) claim. Finally, the Court held that the district court did
not err in dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice.
[GN]
DANIEL LANZER: Cosmetic Surgery Victims Sue over Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Kathryn Emeny, a lawyer at Maddens Lawyers, is spearheading a class
action into the Daniel Lanzer cosmetic surgery clinics. It was
filed in the Victorian Supreme Court in March and so far 540
patients have signed up, alleging Lanzer and some of his other
doctors including Ryan Wells, Daniel Aronov, Daniel Darbyshire and
Ali Fallahi, engaged in negligence.
It also alleges cosmetic surgeries were not undertaken with an
appropriate level of care and skill. The doctors are defending the
claim. In previous statements, Lanzer has said he had thousands of
happy patients and he denied any wrongdoing.
Emeny says it is unprecedented to have such a high level of
interest in a class action at a relatively early stage. The action
came on the back of the "Cosmetic Cowboys" joint investigation by
this masthead and Four Corners 10 months ago.
Since that story aired, hundreds of emails and phone calls have
poured in from patients sharing harrowing stories of surgery gone
wrong. This masthead has seen multiple photos, videos and medical
records of botched abdomens, nipples missing, serious infections
and lopsided faces.
Maddens has also received photos, some of which patients shared
with the Herald. Many look like the walking wounded, with their
lives upended by pain or disfigurement or psychological issues --
in some cases permanent. These include photos of a man who had
complications after staples were used on a mini facelift in
November 2019. Photos of belly buttons put back in the wrong place,
infected abdomens, infected legs, lumps, scarring, burns, and
lopsided tummy tucks.
Maddens has also launched an investigation into another big
operator, Cosmos Clinics, following the investigation by this
masthead and 60 Minutes in June. So far, they have received 65
registrations of interest.
The Herald's June investigation was delayed by three weeks as the
Cosmos founder Dr Joseph Ajaka rushed to court after receiving a
series of questions before publication. The story was held up for
three weeks, in which time two patients ended up in hospital in
Sydney after serious infections post-surgery.
After the Court of Appeal threw out Ajaka's claim and the story
appeared, he threatened to sue for defamation but did not go
through with the threat.
At the time Cosmos said in a statement that "patient safety informs
everything that we do."
Emeny believes the Lanzer class action and the investigation into a
Cosmos class action have unleashed a groundswell of suffering.
"People are coming out of the woodwork. We're receiving inquiries
from patients who have concerns about other cosmetic surgeries, and
they're both big and small operators, they're located across
Australia." [GN]
DIRECTV LLC: Hossfeld Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Directv, LLC. The
case is styled as Robert Hossfeld, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Directv, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-05339-JLS-MAA (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
DirecTV is an American multichannel video programming distributor
based in El Segundo, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J McNeile, Esq.
Kristin Kemnitzer, Esq.
KEMNITZER BARRON ADN KRIEG LLP
1120 Mar West Street Suite C2
Tiburon, CA 94920
Phone: (415) 632-1979
Email: adam@kbklegal.com
kristin@kbklegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason D. Russell, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
Phone: (213) 687-5000
Fax: (213) 621-5328
Email: jason.russell@skadden.com
DISH NETWORK: Sued Over Mismanaged Funds
----------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that on December 20, 2021,
four former employees filed a class action complaint in federal
court in Denver against the company, its Board of Directors, and
its Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising
from the management of its 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company operating two primary
business segments, Pay-TV and Wireless based in Colorado.
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile Appeals Denial of Cert. Bid in FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian Gile filed an appeal from a court ruling denying
class certification in his lawsuit entitled BRIAN GILE, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
and RANDOLPH GALLEGOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA LLC, a Tennessee
limited liability company, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.
Plaintiffs Brian Gile and Randolph Gallegos initially filed this
wage and hour case in California state court. The Defendant removed
it to federal court in September 2020. Following a protracted
pleadings stage, Plaintiffs filed their Seventh Amended Complaint
(7AC), asserting nine California law claims.
On November 15, 2021, the Court denied Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of Gallegos's claims, and denied the Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings concerning Gile's claims on May 6,
2022.
On May 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 12, 2022, the
Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order denying Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Brian Gile, et al. v. Dolgen
California, LLC, Case No. 22-80080, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 16, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners BRIAN GILE, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; and RANDOLPH GALLEGOS,
an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Mickel Montalban Arias, Esq.
Craig Shunji Momita, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive, W Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
- and -
Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Boulevard
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 990-8300
Defendant-Respondent DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company, is represented by:
Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
1800 Century Park, E 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 956-341
DR. JAMES HEAPS: Sexual Assault Trial Begins
--------------------------------------------
Benjamin Apsley of dailybruin.com reports that the sexual assault
trial against former UCLA OB-GYN James Heaps began Aug. 9 and
remains underway.
Heaps, who was previously a faculty member at the David Geffen
School of Medicine and an OB-GYN at UCLA Health from 2014 to 2018,
has been accused of sexual misconduct by more than 100 former
patients. In May 2021, a grand jury indicted him on 21 counts of
felony sexual assault.
The trial process began Aug. 1 with jury selection at the Clara
Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in downtown Los Angeles.
Opening statements from Danette Meyers, the prosecuting attorney
for the case, and Leonard Levine, the defense attorney, began Aug.
9. Meyers said Heaps' behavior led to fear and stress for his
patients, betraying their trust in him and his health institution.
"The evidence will establish they (his patients) were all in fear,
they were scared," Meyers said.
Levine argued actions taken by Heaps at UCLA Health fell under his
responsibility to look for and treat cancer.
"The more thoroughly he does his job, which he did, the better the
chance of him finding cancer if it's there, and treating it,"
Levine said.
A former patient going by Kara C. opened testimony against Heaps,
according to reports from ABC7. According to ABC7, Kara C. used a
female anatomical doll as a prop to show how Heaps touched her in
ways she testified were inappropriate.
On Jan. 11, a federal court approved a class-action settlement
against Heaps of $73 million, though hundreds of women opted out to
pursue individual civil lawsuits.
On Feb. 8, the University of California Board of Regents reached a
settlement of $243.6 million with more than 150 plaintiffs in
sexual assault and misconduct civil lawsuits against Heaps. If
convicted in the criminal trial, Heaps potentially faces more than
91 years in prison, according to the California Penal Code. [GN]
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Valarezo Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Freddy Valarezo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-05219 (D.N.J., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC -- https://www.gotodrs.com/ -- is a
firm providing consumer and commercial collection services to
organizations including Banking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
EASY BED MATTRESS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Easy Bed Mattress
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Easy Bed Mattress Co.,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04981-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Easy Bed Mattress Co., Inc. -- http://www.sleepworksny.com/-- is a
mattress store in Massapequa Park, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ELOCAL USA: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against eLocal USA, LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Chapman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. eLocal USA, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-03383 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
eLocal USA LLC -- https://www.elocal.com/ -- operates as an
advertising company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Silverstein, Esq.
LUNDY, BELDECOS & MILBY
450 N. Narberth Ave., Ste 200
Narberth, PA 19072
Phone: (610) 668-0019
Email: zsilverstein@lbmlaw.com
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Lewis FDCPA Suit removed to E.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kimberli Lewis, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Case No. 22-CVS-4772
was removed from the Wake County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Aug.
4, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00302-FL to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Equity Experts -- https://equityexperts.org/ -- provides HOA and
association collections solutions for community associations driven
by technology and proactive outreach.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Hallett Maginnis, Esq.
MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone: (919) 526-0450
Fax: (919) 882-8763
Email: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
- and -
Karl Stephen Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Rd., Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: (919) 960-1545
Fax: (919) 882-8763
Email: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Katrina M. DeMarte, Esq.
DEMARTE LAW PLLC
39555 Orchard Hill Place, Suite 600, PMB 6338
Novi, MI 48375
Phone: (313) 509-7047
Email: katrina@demartelaw.com
- and -
Kelly Ann Brewer, Esq.
YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP
Post Office Box 2889
Raleigh, NC 27602-2889
Phone: (919) 835-0900
Email: kbrewer@grsm.com
- and -
Kendra N. Stark, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
421 Fayetteville St., Ste 330
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (984) 242-1787
Email: kstark@grsm.com
FCA US LLC: Do Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as Alton Do, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-04497-SK (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 3, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCA) -- https://fcagroup-me.com/ --
was an Italian-American multinational corporation primarily known
as a manufacturer of automobiles, commercial vehicles, auto parts
and production systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Fax: (510) 891-7030
Email: cab@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
FCA US LLC: Regueiro Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as Kristal Regueiro, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05521-SPG-MAR
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCA) -- https://fcagroup-me.com/ --
was an Italian-American multinational corporation primarily known
as a manufacturer of automobiles, commercial vehicles, auto parts
and production systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
Emanuel M Starr, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road No 2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Fax: (818) 914-3433
Email: adam@frontierlawcenter.com
manny@frontierlawcenter.com
- and -
Ari Yale Basser, Esq.
Jordan L Lurie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Fax: (917) 463-1044
Email: abasser@pomlaw.com
jllurie@pomlaw.com
- and -
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 225-9040
Fax: (818) 225-9042
Email: robert@starrlaw.com
FERMENTED SCIENCES: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Alcoholic Drinks
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that adding
healthy ingredients to hard seltzers and kombuchas misleads
consumers into thinking they can avoid the negative effects of
alcohol, a class action lawsuit says.
Plaintiff Christina Van Allen sued Fermented Sciences on Aug. 15 in
Tampa, Fla., federal court. The company makes hard seltzers and
hard kombuchas under the Flying Embers brand.
To stand out from other products, the company adds probiotics,
antioxidants like vitamin C and adaptogens to its drinks.
"Studies have shown that vitamin-fortified snack foods influence
consumers to make negative diet-related decisions by making them
less likely to look at the nutrition facts, more likely to purchase
the fortified products, more likely to think the fortified product
is healthier than a comparable nonfortified product, and more
likely to incorrectly identify the fortified product as the
healthier product," the suit says.
The misleading presentation of the drinks violates the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the suit says.
Attorneys Will Wright and Spencer Sheehan are pursuing the case.
[GN]
FISHER INVESTMENTS: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. FISHER INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-07069 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022), 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://www.fisherinvestments.com/en-us, 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
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 his
computer.
The Defendant operates the Fisher online financial advisor service
as well as the Fisher 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
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Nov. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED USMAN ALI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order
granting joint motion for continuance of hearing on lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- The October 27, 2022 Hearing on Lead Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification is hereby continued to November
10, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., Judge Battaglia says.
Franklin Wireless is a provider of wireless solutions, including
mobile hotspots, routers, trackers, and other devices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AN5qHm at no extra charge.[CC]
FSP BOOKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FSP Books, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FSP Books, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07078-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FSP Books, Inc. -- https://www.fire-police-ems.com/ -- offers
firefighter, police, law enforcement, emergency medical, and rescue
textbooks, DVDs, tools, training materials, gifts, and
collectibles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
G-NET CONSTRUCTION: Villanueva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Villanueva, Jose Eduardo Villanueva, and Julio Perez, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. G-Net
Construction Corp., G-Net Construction Services LLC, G-Net Realty
Corporation, and Joseph Nativo, Case No. 1:22-cv-07199 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 23, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours, unpaid prevailing wages, liquidated and statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and New
York State Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention
Act.
The Plaintiffs regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours a week but never received an overtime premium of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours. On the
weeks where the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours a week,
they were only paid their straight time rate of pay. The
Plaintiffs' wages did not vary regardless of how many additional
hours they worked in a week. To accomplish their business goals,
the Defendants also fail to pair their manual laborers, including
Plaintiffs, legally required overtime wages and prevailing wages
under the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff were employed as manual laborers at G-Net
Construction.
The Defendants own and operate a construction company, known as
"G-Net
Construction."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Oil Consumption Class Action Trial Set Sept. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Hanson, Esq., in an article for Legal Scoops, reports that
consumers who purchased or leased certain 2010-2014 GM vehicles
need to pay close attention to their legal rights. The Court has
certified a GM oil consumption lawsuit to proceed as a class
action, and notice of that class action lawsuit may be sent out to
you later this year.
The Complaint filed in the class action alleges that the Generation
IV Vortec 5300 Engine consumes an abnormally and improperly high
quantity of oil that far exceeds industry standards for reasonable
oil consumption. This excessive oil consumption results in low oil
levels, insufficient lubricity levels, and corresponding internal
engine component damage ("Oil Consumption Defect").
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on December 19, 2016 (Siqueiros v.
General Motors LLC, 16-cv-07244-EMC).
GM Vehicles With the Alleged Oil Consumption Defect
Certain new model year 2010-2014 GM vehicles fitted with GM's
defective LC9 Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 engines with
Active Fuel Management (the "Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines")
manufactured on or after February 10, 2011, including:
2010-14 Chevrolet Avalanche
2010-14 Chevrolet Silverado
2010-14 Chevrolet Suburban
2010-14 Chevrolet Tahoe
2010-14 GMC Sierra
2010-14 GMC Yukon
2010-14 GMC Yukon XL
Current or former owners or lessees of Class Vehicles should be
aware that the California lemon law and other state and federal
laws may force GM to either "buy the vehicle back" or provide
further significant compensation for those experiencing this
defect.
Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be bought
back, and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan
or lease. The refund could be as much as everything you paid for
the vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down
payments, tax, finance charges, license, registration, etc. You
could even qualify for 2x your money back depending on the
circumstances.
What GM would have to buy it for has nothing to do with how much
the vehicle is currently worth. The law has a formula that starts
with you getting all your money back and then taking certain
deductions and exclusions away from your payment. Those refunds and
exclusions are challenging to understand and can be fought against
by knowledgeable consumer attorneys.
For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill
out the form below or call us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).
Watch the mail, watch your email, and contact a consumer lawyer for
advice as to your options.
Oil Consumption Class Action Lawsuit Status
Car owners filed a class action lawsuit over the GM 5.3 Vortec
engine oil consumption issue in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on December 19, 2016.
The case was proposed to be certified to proceed on behalf of
several classes, generally defined as follows: "All 2010-2014 GM
vehicles fitted with GM's defective LC9 Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8
Vortec 5300 engines (the "Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines")
manufactured on or after February 10, 2011."
An Eighth Amended Complaint was filed on July 13, 2022.
In April 2020 and May 2021, the Court approved the case to proceed
as a class action on behalf of all people in California, Idaho,
North Carolina, and Texas who purchased or leased and still owns
one of the above-listed vehicles.
In September 2021, the Court removed Texas owners from the class
action lawsuit. Thus, the Court's ruling certifying a class only
applies to residents of California, Idaho, and North Carolina who
purchased or leased one of the vehicles listed above and still own
or lease that vehicle.
A jury trial was set for August 8, 2022, in San Francisco, before
Judge Edward M. Chen, but was continued to September 19, 2022.
Discovery has been largely completed, with a request for additional
limited discovery pending and expert discovery to be completed next
year.
As the Court has certified the case to proceed as a class action,
notice of the pendency of the action and a deadline to opt-out of
the action will be sent to you sometime before the trial. However,
the parties have not agreed on a deadline for doing so.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).
Your Options as a GM 5.3 Vortec Engine Owner
In a class action lawsuit, if the class is certified by the Court,
the lawyers who bring the class action represent you. You will
receive notice that the case is certified by the Court to proceed
as a class action and of your right to opt-out of the class by a
certain deadline.
If plaintiffs prevail at trial, you will receive whatever relief
the judge or jury awards. But if they lose, you may be unable to
litigate claims over the issues raised in the case.
As with most litigation, the vast majority of class action cases
settle.
If the case settles and the Court preliminarily approves the
settlement, you will receive a class notice describing your
options. Those options will be: (a) do nothing, in which case you
may get nothing but be bound by the settlement, (b) submit a claim
form if requested and get whatever relief is made available, and
the settlement also binds you, or (c) opt-out and pursue your
claims, in which case you are not bound by the settlement but
cannot participate in any of the relief that is being offered to
class members.
For many people, a class action settlement may provide significant
benefits and does not require much effort to participate. It also
comes with no risk, as the claims have been resolved. But for
others, particularly where they may have had significant damages,
opting out and pursuing individual claims may provide them an
opportunity to receive a better recovery in a shorter period, but
with no guarantee that they will get anything in a settlement.
Regarding vehicles, what to do can be a complicated decision, as it
can depend on many factors. These factors include:
low oil lights on dashboardHow old is your car?
Has the oil consumption defect occurred in your car?
Have you taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion?
Do you still own the car?
Is the vehicle still under warranty?
Where do you live?
Are you willing to consider getting a more significant recovery
than what is offered in any class action settlement?
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
an informed decision. Fill out the following form, and we will
contact you.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).
GM Oil Consumption Class Action FAQs
What is the class action lawsuit name and case number?
Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC, 16-cv-07244-EMC
When and where was a class action lawsuit filed?
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on December 19, 2016.
What does the GM class action lawsuit allege about the oil
consumption defect?
Plaintiffs allege that Generation IV Vortec 5.3 engine consumes an
abnormally and improperly high quantity of oil that far exceeds
industry standards for reasonable oil consumption. This excessive
oil consumption results in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity
levels, and corresponding internal engine component damage.
Plaintiffs allege that GM knew of the Oil Consumption Defect and
the resulting engine damage. Despite this knowledge, GM continued
selling and leasing affected vehicles without disclosing the Oil
Consumption Defect.
Instead, GM has allowed drivers of these vehicles to continue
driving those vehicles, despite knowing that they are consuming oil
at an abnormally high rate, and has continued allowing drivers to
rely on the Oil Life Monitoring System, despite GM knowing that
they were driving well past the point at which their vehicles have
consumed the amount of oil necessary for proper engine lubrication
and proper, safe operation.
The result is that these vehicles can suffer engine failure and
engine damage, including spark plug fouling, ring wear, lifter
collapse, bent pushrods, camshaft wear, valve wear, rod bearing
wear, rod breakage, wrist pin wear, wrist pin breakage, crankshaft
wear and main bearing wear or destruction and other forms of
internal component wear/breakage due to unacceptable heat and
friction levels resulting from oil breakdown.
What GM vehicles does the class action lawsuit cover?
2010-2014 GM vehicles fitted with GM's defective LC9 Generation IV
5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 engines with Active Fuel Management (the
"Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines") manufactured on or after
February 10, 2011, including the following vehicles:
Chevrolet Avalanche
Chevrolet Silverado
Chevrolet Suburban
Chevrolet Tahoe
GMC Sierra
GMC Yukon
GMC Yukon XL
How many GM vehicles are impacted by the oil consumption defect?
According to publicly available data, the total number of Class
Vehicles sold is approximately 4.1 million.
What does the class action lawsuit claim is the cause of the oil
consumption defect?
Multiple factors contribute to the excessive oil consumption
problem in Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. It is an inherent
defect in each of the vehicles.
The primary nature and result of the Oil Consumption Defect is that
the piston rings that GM installed within the Generation IV Vortec
5300 Engines do not maintain sufficient tension to keep oil in the
crankcase.
How does the oil consumption defect violate the vehicle warranty?
In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would
repair or replace defects in material or workmanship free of charge
if they became apparent during the warranty period. The Plaintiffs
also allege GM's Limited Warranty is a written warranty within the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 USC §2301(6).
The Plaintiffs allege GM breached its express warranty to repair
defects in materials and workmanship within the affected vehicles
as GM has not repaired and has been unable to repair the Oil
Consumption defect. As a result of GM's breach of its implied and
express warranties, purchasers of these vehicles received goods
with substantially impaired value and that GM has failed or refused
to repair.
The Plaintiffs allege that because these vehicles suffer from the
Oil Consumption defect, which causes excessive oil loss and leads
to engine damage, GM also breached both its implied and express
warranties. These vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty
of merchantability because, at the time of sale, they were
defective and not in merchantable condition, would not pass without
objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose
for which vehicles were used.
Have GM owners been offered anything to resolve this issue?
adding more oil to engineOver the years, GM has instructed its
dealers to address the excessive oil loss problem in the vehicles
by performing stop-gap fixes of the Generation IV Vortec 5300
Engines' PCV and AFM systems. Additionally, GM instructed dealers
to decarbonize combustion chambers and rings with chemical
abrasives. Such fixes, however, failed to provide a complete and
adequate remedy for the Oil Consumption Defect.
For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill
out the form below or call us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).
Plaintiffs also allege GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption
Defect or any of its causes to consumers before purchasing or
leasing their Class Vehicles.
What is the status of the GM oil consumption class action?
The Court issued orders certifying the case to proceed as a class
action on April 23, 2020, November 6, 2020, and May 25, 2021, and
clarified that Order on August 2, 2021.
On September 7, 2021, the Court declined to decertify all classes
and the North Carolina sub-class but did decertify the Texas
sub-class. Thus, this action has been certified to proceed for
breach of the implied warranty for current owners or lessees of the
vehicles listed above who reside in California (for new vehicles
purchases or leases only), Idaho (for persons who purchased or
leased those vehicles new or used from a GM authorized dealer for
violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act), and North
Carolina, who bought or leased those vehicles new or used (for
breach of implied warranty of merchantability).
In September 2021, the Court set the matter for a jury trial
beginning on August 8, 2022, but that date has been continued to
September 19, 2022. Discovery has been largely completed, with a
request for additional limited discovery pending and expert
discovery to be completed next year.
There is no deadline to send out class notice at this time.
Has the GM oil consumption class action been settled?
A mediation held in August 2019 was unsuccessful. A Status
Conference was held on September 14, 2021, where the Court set the
matter for a jury trial.
The Court suggested that the parties pursue settlement options at
that time once the Court had ruled on certain motions and the
parties had agreed to a mediator.
The parties participated in another status conference on December
9, 2021, to discuss pending motions, discovery, mediation, and the
setting of pretrial dates and dates for mailing out class notice.
There has been no public update on the status of settlement
discussions.
Is there anything I need to do at this time?
The case has not settled at this point, but it has been certified
to proceed as a class action. Notice of the certified classes has
not been mailed or approved for mailing yet. If you want to bring
your own claim, you can do so now and opt out when you receive
notice. Or the class will be defined as those people who have not
filed lawsuits or settled their claims, and you will be
automatically opted out of the settlement.
As a settlement has not been reached nor class notice mailed out,
there is nothing you need to do now. However, if you want to
discuss your options with us, please call us at (855) OPT-OUT1
(855-678-6881).
What Happens If I Don't Opt Out of the Class Action Lawsuit or
Settlement?
It depends on how the settlement is structured, but generally, if
you do not opt-out of the settlement, you will be bound by its
terms. You will receive any benefits offered in the settlement
automatically or by submitting a claim form. However, you will not
be able to bring any individual claim for damages caused by the
defect in Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines, except possibly for
personal injury claims.
Why Should I Opt Out of Any Certified or Settlement Class?
For many people, a class action provides them significant benefits
without spending any money or doing much other than complete a
claim form. And because the matter is settled, as long as the Court
approves the settlement, you will get the relief described in the
class notice.
However, other people may decide that the relief offered as part of
the class action settlement is inadequate, that they do not want to
wait to get relief, or that they think they will get more if they
do not participate in the class action settlement.
This depends on a variety of factors, such as: how old your car is,
whether you can document the defect that occurred in your vehicle,
whether you have taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion,
do you still own the car, is it still under warranty and where do
you live. Depending on the answers to those questions, while there
is no guarantee that you will receive any recovery, if you opt out,
you may have the opportunity to receive significant relief,
including a vehicle repurchase and penalties.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (1-855-678-6881).
Do all the Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines excessively burn oil?
The extent of the oil burning and other defects appears common to
the engine.
Has there been a recall on the GM 5.3 Vortec engine for excessive
oil consumption?
GM has not issued a recall on the oil consumption issue. GM
previously issued several Technical Service Bulletins relating to
the prior generation Vortec engine.
According to allegations in the class action lawsuits, starting
with some 2014 model vehicles, GM began implementing a Generation V
Vortec 5300 engine that was redesigned to fix the excessive oil
consumption of the Generation IV engines, but did not resolve this
issue.
According to the class action lawsuits, GM has not offered relief
to customers who own the allegedly defective vehicles.
Are cars with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines unsafe?
Any car that can suffer engine failure and engine damage, including
spark plug fouling, ring wear, lifter collapse, bent pushrods,
camshaft wear, valve wear, rod bearing wear, rod breakage, wrist
pin wear, wrist pin breakage, crankshaft wear, and main bearing
wear or destruction and other forms of internal component
wear/breakage due to unacceptable heat and friction levels
resulting from oil breakdown, and that as a result can stall or has
a significant chance of stalling, is unsafe.
What is the Song-Beverly Warranty Act?
The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code
§1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires
manufacturers to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair
attempts. What is "reasonable" is not part of hard and fast rules
– safety defects should be fixed immediately, for example. The
defects have to be important, and must "substantially impair the
vehicle's use, value, OR safety." Civil Code §1793.22(e)(2). Under
Civil Code §1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers must promptly offer
repurchase or replacement of the Class Vehicle they cannot fix in a
reasonable time frame. In addition, Civil Code §1794(c) and
§1793.2(d) provides that customers are entitled to a civil penalty
in an amount up to two times actual damages if manufacturers acted
"willfully" (meaning knowingly, but not necessarily with wrongful
or malicious intent) in ignoring or failing its obligation under
Song-Beverly.
Finally, under Civil Code §1794(d), manufacturers must pay the
plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs as part of the settlement, as
the Song-Beverly Act is a pro-consumer fee-shifting statute.
May I have additional rights if I am an Armed Forces member?
Under Cal. Civil Code 1795.8, if a person is a member of the Armed
Forces, the protections of the Song-Beverly Act may apply, even if
you purchased your vehicle outside of California, so long as the
manufacturer sells cars in California. The member of the Armed
Forces would need to show they were stationed in or a resident of
California at the time they purchased the vehicle or when they
filed a claim against the manufacturer.
What compensation could I get if I bring an individual lemon law
lawsuit?
Current or former owners should be aware that the California lemon
law and other state and federal laws may force GM to either "buy
the vehicle back" or provide other significant compensation. Under
California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be bought back,
and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan or
lease. The refund could be as much as everything you paid for the
vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down payments,
tax, finance charges, license, registration, etc. You could even
qualify for 2x your money back depending on the circumstances.
What GM would have to buy it for has nothing to do with how much
the vehicle is currently worth. There is a formula in the law that
starts with you getting all your money back and then taking certain
deductions and exclusions away from your payment. Those refunds and
exclusions are challenging to understand and can be fought against
by knowledgeable consumer attorneys. Don't settle for small dollar
payments or more possible fixes without speaking to a qualified
consumer attorney who has your individual best interest in mind.
Watch the mail, watch your email, and contact a consumer lawyer for
advice when and if the case settles.
Have questions? Contact us.
There are a lot of factors to consider in deciding whether to
opt-out of a class action settlement and pursue individual claims.
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
an informed decision as to your options.
Fill out the following form, and we will promptly contact you, or
call us at (855) OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881). [GN]
GENIUS BRANDS: Alavi Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ali Alavi, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Salvador Verdin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENIUS BRANDS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and ANDY HEYWARD, Case No. 2:20-cv-07457, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
This lawsuit was brought on August 18, 2020, to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of those who
were damaged as a result of the Company's artificially inflated
stock prices.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, other
than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
of Genius sold under the ticker symbol "GNUS" on the NASDAQ Market
in the United States from March 17, 2020, through July 5, 2020,
inclusive.
According to the complaint, Genius stock was heavily marketed to
retail investors through the use of several misleading tactics to
entice investment. For example, Genius repeatedly compared itself
to Netflix, calling itself the "Netflix for Kids, but free." Genius
also touted its purported association with celebrities like Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Stan Lee in order to create hype.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported
broadcast expansion of Genius' Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii)
subscription fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's
growth potential and overall prospects as a company. While the
share price of Genius stock was artificially inflated due to these
misstatements, Genius registered for sale tens of millions of
shares, allowing certain longtime investors to cash out at the
expense of Plaintiff and the Class.
On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff Salvador Verdin filed a motion to
consolidate cases and to appoint counsel.
On December 2, 2020, Judge Dale S. Fischer granted the Motion for
Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel.
Actions were consolidated in In re Genius Brands International,
Inc., Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV 20-7457 DSF (RAOx).
The Court directed all subsequently filed pleadings and papers to
be captioned In re Genius Brands International, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. CV 20-7457 DSF (RAOx) and shall be
filed only in this case.
On March 17, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint which the Court granted on
August 30, 2021, through an Order signed by Judge Dale S. Fischer.
The Court gave the Plaintiff no later than September 27, 2021, to
file an amended complaint.
On September 27, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint against Defendants.
On November 22, 2021, the Defendants filed anew a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint.
On July 15, 2022, Judge Fischer granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Judgment was therefore, entered in the case, and the Court
held that the Plaintiffs take nothing; that the action is dismissed
with prejudice, and that the Defendants may recover their costs of
suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
section 1920.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Ali Alavi, et al. v.
Genius Brands International, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55760, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
Aug. 12, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants A Legacy Foundation and Ali Alavi Mediation
Questionnaire was due on Aug. 19, 2022;
-- Appellants A Legacy Foundation and Ali Alavi opening brief is
due on October 11, 2022;
-- Appellees Robert Denton, Genius Brands International, Inc.
and Andy Heyward answering brief is due on November 14, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ALI ALAVI and A LEGACY FOUNDATION, Lead
Plaintiffs; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
Ex Kano Shirden Sams, II, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Defendants-Appellees GENIUS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Michael Lloyd Charlson, Esq.
Elizabeth Au Matthews, Esq.
VINSON & ELKINS, LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0923
Telephone: (415) 979-6910
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition
Manufacturing, Inc., Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV22913 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
August 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-05909-AB-GJS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Glanbia -- https://www.glanbia.com/ -- are a global nutrition
company on a mission to help people lead healthy, active
lives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
Gillian H Clow, Esq.
Robert D Phillips, Jr., Esq.
ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-2519
Fax: (213) 576-1100
Email: rachel.lowe@alston.com
Gillian.Clow@alston.com
bo.phillips@alston.com
GMRI INC: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
Derek Helling, writing for Mashed, reports that LongHorn Steakhouse
has a nationwide presence in the United States, and while there are
benefits to growth on that scale, there are some drawbacks as well.
One of those potential downsides relates to a class action lawsuit
the brand is facing.
According to the company website, LongHorn Steakhouse began in a
single location in the Atlanta area in 1981, and through the four
decades since has grown to over 500 locations. Operating at that
scale offers perks like being able to make more sales and purchase
the goods you need at better prices (via Fast Casual). At the same
time, the size of LongHorn means the restaurant chain employs
thousands of people, and making sure all those employees are happy
becomes a lot more difficult. Employment issues have been a problem
for individual LongHorn locations in the past, like the 2020 sexual
harassment lawsuit brought against the company by a couple of
former servers at the Wilkes-Barre location that Pennsylvania
Record covered
The most recent lawsuit has the potential to affect more than just
one restaurant in the chain, however. Public Citizen explains that
a class-action lawsuit is a lawsuit in which a group of people with
similar grievances against one company or person band together to
seek mutual justice in light of the allegations they make. This
class-action lawsuit against LongHorn Steakhouse could result in
multiple restaurant locations paying the price -- literally.
The allegations against LongHorn Steakhouse
Potential trouble is grilling for LongHorn Steakhouse from a group
of current and former servers. Class Action says the lead plaintiff
filed her lawsuit in a Pennsylvania federal court in March and
welcomes everyone who has worked for LongHorn as a tipped employee
during the covered time frame to join her. The lawsuit alleges that
GMRI Inc., which operates the LongHorn Steakhouse locations, failed
to properly compensate tipped workers.
Federal minimum wage laws and many state laws allow companies like
GMRI to claim tip credits, according to Paychex. However, the
restaurants are responsible for ensuring that employees actually
get compensated in line with the standard minimum wages relevant to
their locations. Class Action says that this lawsuit alleges GMRI
failed to do that. This isn't the first time that LongHorn
Steakhouse has been involved in legal disputes over this very
issue, either.
In 2012, former employees of several Darden Restaurant brands
including LongHorn filed a similar lawsuit (per Today). There was
another attempt last year that was dismissed in September 2021 (via
Courthouse News Service). In both cases, the allegations included
LongHorn restaurants failing to compensate tipped workers in
accordance with the law. This is most likely not what GMRI would
like to see when workers reveal what it's really like to work at
LongHorn, but it has successfully navigated litigation of this kind
so far. If this attempt proves more successful, many locations
could be adjusting their employment practices. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Workspace Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer law firms Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC have filed a class action lawsuit against
Google, LLC based on its treatment of customers who signed up for
Workspace (formerly G Suite or Google Apps) during the several
years when Google promised that the service would be
"free-for-life." The suit has been filed in federal district court
in San Jose, California. The Class Action Complaint alleges that,
in order to entice early adopter customers to sign up for the
service that is now known as Google Workspace, Google promised them
free service for as long as Google offered the service. Google
entered into this bargain, according to the Complaint, so it could
benefit from these customers' experiences and use of the service to
develop and fine-tune the service, with the goal of putting Google
in a position to eventually market the service to other customers
for a fee.
According to the Complaint, beginning in January of 2012, all new
customers signing up for Workspace were required to pay for the
service. Paid customers pay a monthly fee per user, such as $12 per
employee/user, for a basic version of Workspace. The Complaint
alleges, however, that until recently, Google had never mentioned
breaking the "free-for-life" promise made to the early adopters of
Workspace. The suit contends that, in January 2022, Google
announced to its "free-for-life" customers that it was going to
completely stop providing their free service, even though Google
continued to offer the same Workspace suite of products. Plaintiff
alleges that, by making this announcement, Google forced its
"free-for-life" customers to choose between paying for Workspace or
losing the service entirely, in which case they would have to find
a new service, migrate their information to that new service, and
potentially risk losing important data and content that they were
storing on Google's systems.
The suit also recounts how Google officially renounced its ethos of
"Don't Be Evil" prior to announcing the end of the "free-for-life"
promise. The Complaint alleges the company has grown massively from
the time it made the "free-for-life" promise to now making billions
of dollars in profits each month.
The Class Action Complaint asserts that, due to backlash from
customers in response to Google's announcement that it was
breaching its "free-for-life" promise, Google eventually allowed
some "free-for-life" customers with "non-commercial" accounts to
"opt-out" of the breach. The suit alleges, however, that the
Plaintiff and other small business owners who have commercial
accounts are now forced to pay for their once-free Workspace
services, even though, the suit contends, Google never
distinguished between commercial and non-commercial use when it
made the free-for-life promise and Google knew that many of the
early adopters would use the service for their business. Indeed,
the Complaint explains that Google explicitly marketed the free
service to businesses. The suit also alleges that "non-commercial"
users who provided their payment information shortly after Google's
January 2022 announcement that it was breaking the free-for-life
promise, and other "non-commercial" users, are likewise being
forced to pay for their once-free Workspace service in violation of
what Google promised.
The suit also includes illustrative complaints from legacy Google
Apps or G Suite users. Such complaints show that Google's improper
action affected many of Google's most loyal customers.
The legal claims referenced in the Class Action Complaint are for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law. The suit seeks restitution,
specific performance, and injunctive relief.
The case, styled The Stratford Company, LLC v. Google, LLC, is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and has been assigned case number
5:22-cv-04547-NC.
If you wish to discuss this class action or have any questions
concerning this press release, please contact Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP at (415) 956-1000 or
workspaceclassaction@lchb.com. You may also visit the firm website
at www.lieffcabraser.com/workspace. In the alternative, you may
contact Webb, Klase & Lemond at (770) 444-9325 or
Contact@WebbLLC.com or visit the website at www.WebbLLC.com.
Contacts:
Roger Heller
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
rheller@lchb.com
415 956-1000
lieffcabraser.com [GN]
GREIF INC: Ryan Sues Over Drinking Water Contamination
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ryan, Susan Ryan, Sean Gallagher, and Ashley Sultan
Gallagher, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. GREIF, INC., CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC., THE NEWARK GROUP, INC.,
MASSACHUSETTS NATURAL FERTILIZER CO., INC., OTTER FARM, INC., AND
SEAMAN PAPER COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-40089-NMG (D. Mass., Aug. 2, 2022), is brought against
Defendants resulting from their intentional, reckless, and/or
negligent acts and omissions in connection with the discharge,
distribution, and/or disposal of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances and their constituents ("PFAS"), which has resulted in
the contamination of real property and drinking water supplies
owned and used by the Plaintiffs and other class members.
PFAS chemicals are man-made, long-lasting chemicals that do not
exist in nature. There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, but
Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA") and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
("PFOS") are the two most widely used PFAS chemicals. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has strict PFAS standards, including
rules for drinking water systems and cleanup of contaminated sites.
Massachusetts has invested substantial funding to assist
communities that experience PFAS contamination in drinking water.
Together, the Greif Defendants, Seaman Paper, Otter Farm, and
MassNatural are responsible for an environmental disaster in
Westminster, Massachusetts. In January 2022, a Westminster,
Massachusetts homeowner living on Bean Porridge Hill Road near
MassNatural's operations at Otter Farm requested testing of the
residence's private-well-supplied drinking water (the "Initial
Testing Site"). Laboratory analysis of the water sample collected
at the Initial Testing Site revealed a PFAS6 concentration of 1,335
ppt, a level that dramatically exceeded the acceptable 20 ppt level
published by MassDEP.
On July 20, 2022, MassDEP also issued a Notice of Responsibility to
Greif (the "Greif Notice of Responsibility") in connection with
contamination of the Otter Farm Property and surrounding areas with
materials dumped at Otter Farm by Greif. Both the Greif Notice of
Responsibility and the UAO2 state that Greif had disposed of waste
products at MassNatural and that MassDEP tested Greif waste
products and found they contained PFAS6 concentrations in excess of
the 20 ppt limit designated as the Imminent Hazard Level by
MassDEP. MassDEP has identified Mass Natural, Seaman Paper, Otter
Farm, and Greif as parties "with potential liability for response
action costs and damages."
Westminster residents living near the Otter Farm Property and/or
whose land and water are likely to be impacted by the emission of
PFAS6 from the Otter Farm Property, including Plaintiffs and the
Class Members, face an uncertain future. Their exposure to PFAS6
means they have experienced or are at risk of experiencing adverse
health events known to be caused by PFAS6. They require medical
monitoring and/or treatment to ensure that any adverse health
effects resulting from exposure to PFAS6 are detected and treated
as early as possible. In addition to negatively impacting their
day-to-day lives, Plaintiffs and the Class Members who may wish to
relocate away from the contamination site will suffer additional
challenges and diminution of property value as a result of the
known presence of widespread PFAS6 contamination in their water and
on their property, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Westminster,
Massachusetts.
Greif is a publicly traded industrial packaging products and
services company founded in 1877.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
Paul A. Slager, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Zachary A. Rynar, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CN 06901
Phone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
Email: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
pslager@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
zrynar@sgtlaw.com
HARD ROCK CAFE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hard Rock Cafe
International (USA), Inc. The case is styled as Christopher
Loadholt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07099
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hard Rock Cafe -- http://www.hardrock.com/-- is a chain of theme
restaurants founded in 1971 by Isaac Tigrett and Peter Morton in
London. In 1979, the cafe began covering its walls with rock and
roll memorabilia, a tradition which expanded to others in the
chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Sanabria Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HealthMarkets, Inc.
The case is styled as Edward Sanabria, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HealthMarkets, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-22672-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
HealthMarkets -- https://www.healthmarkets.com/ -- is one of the
largest independent insurance distribution agencies in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
HENRY INDUSTRIES: Sarate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Henry Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Ernest Sarate, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Henry Industries, Inc.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0007294 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Aug. 19, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Henry Industries Inc. -- https://www.henryindustriesinc.com/ -- is
a full-service nationwide provider of distribution center,
warehouse and logistic needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Kramer, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116-2648
HILL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Investigation Over Proposed Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Hill
International, Inc. (HIL), relating to its proposed merger with
Global Infrastructure Solutions Inc. Under the terms of the tender
offer, HIL shareholders are expected to receive $2.85 in cash per
share they own. Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/case/hill-international-inc.It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in HIL and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giguere v. Homeworks
Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-30015 (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order on motion for extension
of time as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification
by December 21, 2022.
-- The Defendant shall file any opposition to the motion for
class certification by January 20, 2023.
-- The Plaintiff may file a reply brief in support of the
motion for class certification by February 14, 2023.
-- A hearing on the motion for class certification will be
held on March 1, 2023, at 11:00 a.m.
-- If no motion for class certification is filed, this hearing
shall be converted to a status conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
HomeWorks Energy is an environmental services company.[CC]
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Teresa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Horizon Actuarial Services,
LLC, Case No. CGC-22-600443 was removed from the San Francisco
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the California
Northern District California on Aug. 5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-04550-JD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC --
https://www.horizonactuarial.com/ -- is a leading consulting firm
that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to
multiemployer benefit plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Joseph Wynne, Esq.
George Ryan Nemiroff, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939
Phone: (415) 461-6400
Fax: (415) 461-3900
Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
220 Halleck Street, Suite 220
San Francisco, CA 94129
Phone: (415) 983-0900
Fax: (415) 397-9005
Email: matt@righettilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bethany A. Vasquez, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
101 Montgomery, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 593-9621
Email: BAVasquez@cozen.com
- and -
Dina Rebecca Richman, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556
Phone: (213) 892-7974
Fax: (213) 892-7999
Email: drichman@cozen.com
HP INC: Plaintiffs Want Printer Firmware Class Action Expanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that after
having some of their claims dismissed last October, the plaintiffs
leading the charge against HP Inc. in a consumer class action over
its LaserJet printers urged the court to allow them to file an
amended pleading on Aug. 22. The suit contests how HP allegedly
disables its own customers' printers using malicious code designed
to block competitors' supply cartridges from working through
firmware "updates."
As previously reported, the business and individual plaintiffs
contend that HP transmits online firmware updates to LaserJet
printers which alters their code and renders competitors' ink
cartridges incompatible. They further accuse HP of using the update
process to secretly collect data concerning whether customers are
using HP or its competitors' cartridges without their consent.
In a ruling last fall, the Northern District of California largely
upheld the plaintiffs' third amended complaint. Magistrate Judge
Susan Van Keulen left standing the plaintiffs' fraud-based consumer
remedy claims made in reliance on statements from HP about its
printers' purported compatibility with other ink cartridges. Too,
their federal and California computer hacking statute claims
survived to the extent they did not accuse HP of unauthorized
access, as the court said those allegations found no support in the
pleading.
Now, and in response to "additional reports of the exact same
alleged conduct" impacting HP InkJet printers, the plaintiffs seek
to encompass those model printers in their suit.
Though HP opposed the filing of a fourth amended complaint, the
plaintiffs claim that it would be neither futile, as the court
upheld parallel allegations against LaserJet printers, nor unduly
delayed. The motion asserts that the case is in its nascency as
limited documents have been produced and no depositions taken.
Further, they claim that HP will not be prejudiced by amendment as
the conduct causing the alleged harm to InkJet printer owners is
the same as that to LaserJet printer owners.
The plaintiffs are represented by Javitch Law Office and Zimmerman
Law Offices P.C. HP is represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
[GN]
HY-VEE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hy-Vee, Inc. The case
is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Hy-Vee, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07228
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hy-Vee -- https://www.hy-vee.com/ -- is an employee-owned chain of
supermarkets in the Midwestern and Southern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bissell Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Cobi Bissell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hyundai Motor America Corporation, Kia Motors America, Inc., Case
No. 4:22-cv-00548-BCW (W.D. Mo., Aug. 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability.
Hyundai Motor America --
https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/our-company -- manufactures and
retails automobiles. The Company offers compacts, sedans, hybrids,
crossovers, passenger cars, spare parts, tools, and equipments,
including maintenance, repair, and auto finance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: (816) 945-7110
Fax: (816) 945-7118
Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
ILLUMINATE EDUCATION: Chung Suit Transferred to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sarah Chung, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Illuminate Education, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03110 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on August 23, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01547-JWH-DFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Illuminate Education -- https://www.illuminateed.com/ -- provides
innovative tools that educators can use to promote student and
educator success.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Chung, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG
43-22 216th Street
Bayside, NY 11361
Phone: (718) 461-8808
Email: jchung_77@msn.com
- and -
Theodore Hillebrand, Esq.
65-24 78th St
Middle Village, NY 11379
Phone: (929) 246-0747
Email: thillebrand@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexia Renee Brancato, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 909-3344
Email: alexia.brancato@kirkland.com
- and -
Devin Anderson, Esq.
Emily Long, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 389-5198
Email: devin.anderson@kirkland.com
emily.long@kirkland.com
INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Suit Over Suboxone's Illegal Marketing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole DeFeudis, writing for Endpoints News, reports that Indivior
isn't getting out of its class action Suboxone lawsuit without a
trial, a federal judge ruled on Aug. 22.
Judge Mitchell Goldberg of Pennsylvania denied two motions by
Indivior for a summary judgment in a case alleging the company
committed a "product hop" scheme to prevent generic competition to
its opioid addiction treatment Suboxone.
Suboxone, a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone, was approved
in tablet form back in 2002 for the treatment of opioid dependence.
Indivior, formerly a division of Reckitt Benckiser, developed the
drug along with the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse,
and received orphan drug exclusivity until October 2009.
At the time, Reckitt's Subutex and Suboxone tablets were the only
maintenance treatments on the market for opioid addiction that
could be prescribed for at-home use, according to court documents.
By 2006, Reckitt execs had developed a "Generic Defense Strategy,"
which included consideration of a new under-the-tongue film
formulation developed by the company MonoSol. Plaintiffs accused
the company of switching to the sublingual film and withdrawing
Suboxone pills before losing exclusivity to keep generic
competitors from the market, a process they called a "product
hop."
In justifying its decision to withdraw the tablets, Indivior
asserted that there was a "high level of sensitivity at the moment
to unintentional childhood exposure to buprenorphine," and
introduced individually wrapped child-proof packs for the film. The
company also claimed that tablets could be abused by snorting,
while film is more difficult to abuse.
Plaintiffs in the class action case, however, argued that the film
could be "more easily converted to a liquid for inappropriate
diversionary injections and is more difficult for children to spit
out if accidental pediatric exposure occurs."
The FDA noted in a March 2010 letter that "[W]e do not agree that
the packaging for buprenorphine HCl and naloxone HCl [Suboxone]
sublingual film provides meaningful incremental protection against
pediatric exposure."
In 2020, Indivior pleaded guilty to making false statements about
the safety of Suboxone film around children to the Massachusetts
Medicaid program.
Former Indivior medical lead who pled guilty to false opioid
marketing now seeks FDA hearing to escape debarment
While Indivior requested a summary judgment in the class action
case, Goldberg noted in his opinion that both the company and
plaintiffs have submitted hundreds of pages of responses,
objections and facts, and that "any attempt to synthesize these
submissions would essentially amount to a trial on the papers."
In its argument for a summary judgment, Indivior admitted to
anticompetitive conduct, but added that plaintiffs have failed to
prove market-wide harm, or that consumers were unwilling to pay
more for the film and its purported safety benefits.
The first companies to gain generic approval for sublingual film
versions of Suboxone were Mylan Technologies and Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories, but not until 2018.
Goldberg noted in his opinion that "plaintiffs need only produce
evidence that the challenged restraint had a substantial
anticompetitive effect that harms consumers in the relevant
market.'
"To that end, I conclude that Plaintiffs have produced evidence
that, if accepted, could establish that Reckitt's conduct harmed
consumer welfare through the combined effects of Reckitt's switch
from tablet to film, increase in the price of the tablet,
fabrication and marketing of a 'safety story' about the dangers of
the tablet, and the subsequent withdrawal of the tablet prior to
generic entry," he wrote.
"Indivior is proud to be the global leader in developing
medications to treat opioid use disorder. These evidence-based
treatment options are a critical part of the solution to the global
opioid crisis and we take our role as a responsible steward of
these medications extremely seriously. We do not comment on ongoing
litigation," Indivior's chief global impact officer Nina DeLorenzo
said in a statement.
This article has been updated with a statement from Indivior. [GN]
INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Levine Hat Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innate Intelligence,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Levine Hat Co., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Innate Intelligence,
LLC, ProFax, Inc., Nepute Enterprises, LLC, Case No.
1:22-mc-02530-UAD (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022).
Innate Intelligence -- https://innate-intelligence.com/ -- is a
world-leading specialist in somatics and applied whole-systems
design with over 15 years of U.S. and international practice,
scientific research and professional application.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
KEANE LAW LLC
7711 Bonhomme Avenue, Ste. 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
Email: ryan@keanelawllc.com
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Appeals Summary Judgment in Roman Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO
VAZQUEZ, and JUAN AGUILAR, JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.
In this wage-and-hour class action involving misclassification of
janitorial workers, the plaintiffs moved for class certification
and summary judgment as to all claims. The Defendant also moved for
summary judgment as to all claims.
The Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Court's order granted summary judgment in
favor of plaintiffs as to all certified issues. Namely, it found
that all of the defendant's janitorial workers were employees for
purposes of the California wage orders. And, it found defendant
liable for mandatory training pay, reimbursement for necessary
expenses covered under the California wage orders, and pay for
unlawful deductions covered under the California wage orders. It
denied plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint to include a
claim regarding itemized wage statements.
The Court's order, however, did not consider summary judgment as to
the following uncertified, individual labor code issues that remain
in this action: minimum wages for cleaning work and travel time;
overtime wages for cleaning work; reimbursement for necessary
expenses not covered under the California wage orders; and pay for
unlawful deductions not covered under the California wage orders.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 18, 2022, the Hon.
Judge William Alsup entered an order:
1. granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Vazquez as
to his individual minimum wage claim for cleaning work;
2. granting summary judgment in favor of defendant as to
plaintiff Roman's individual minimum wage claim for
cleaning work;
3. denying both parties' motions for summary judgment as to
plaintiff Aguilar's individual minimum wage claim for
cleaning work;
4. granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs as to all
their claims for travel time pay;
5. denying both parties' motions for summary judgment as to
all of plaintiffs' individual overtime claims; and
6. denying both parties' motions for summary judgment as to
all of plaintiffs' individual claims for expense
reimbursements and unlawful deductions.
The appellate case is captioned as Jan-Pro Franchising
International, Inc. v. Gloria Roman, et al., Case No. 22-80081, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
Aug. 16, 2022.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC. is
represented by:
Norman M. Leon, Esq.
DLA PIPER, LLP (US)
444 W Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 368-2192
- and -
Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
DLA PIPER, LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 836-2524
- and -
Jeffrey Mark Rosin, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER, PLLC
111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 719
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 843-6801
Plaintiffs-Respondents GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO VAZQUEZ, JUAN AGUILAR,
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
- and -
Adam M. Rose, Esq.
23901 Calabasas Road 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 225-9040
JANCO INDUSTRIES: Mariscal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Janco Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Martin Mariscal, Daniel Garcia, and
Rafael Rojas, individuals, on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Janco Industries, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2022-0007290 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June
9, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Janco Industries -- https://www.janco-ind.com/ -- is a
family-owned, specialized metal fabrication company located in
Sully, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
JOBY AVIATION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Neely, writing for Monterey County Now, reports that
Joby Aviation, the Santa Cruz-based company that is emerging as a
leader in aviation tech and has a manufacturing facility in Marina,
has been served with a nine-count class action lawsuit that claims
the company violated California labor laws at its Marina plant.
Jason Malaluan is the only named plaintiff but his lawsuit, filed
in Monterey County Superior Court on Aug. 2, and claims to
represent a class of over 50 people. Malaluan, represented by
attorney Jessica Campbell and a team of lawyers at Irvine-based
Aegis Law Firm, alleges that Joby Aviation failed to pay minimum
wage, compensate workers for overtime, provide meal and rest breaks
and pay wages on time. Representatives from Joby Aviation declined
to comment for this story.
Malaluan is seeking relief exceeding $25,000 to collect unpaid
wages, unpaid business expenses, benefits and attorneys fees. He is
also demanding the case be tried by a jury. The case has been
assigned to Monterey County Superior Court Judge Thomas Willis and
a hearing is set for Dec. 6. Joby has not yet filed a response to
Malaluan's lawsuit.
Although the lawsuit lays out nine counts of labor violations, it
is short on details regarding how and when these violations
occurred. Also unclear is what job title Malaluan held and if, when
or how his employment was terminated. Representatives from Aegis
Law Firm did not return the Weekly's multiple requests for
comment.
Joby Aviation is focused on a sector of the transportation tech
sector known as electric vertical take-off and landing, or eVTOL.
Joby's vehicles are essentially unmanned electric helicopters the
company hopes to use as ride-hailing vehicles in an Uber-like
service for air travel.
The company, which received a Federal Aviation Administration
certificate in May, has targeted 2024 as the date they hope to
launch the service into the market.
Joby first set up shop at the Marina Municipal Airport in 2018,
paying $25,000/month in rent to the city. [GN]
KASHI SALES: Cosgrove Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Cosgrove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kashi Sales L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-00760 (W.D. Mich.,
Aug. 20, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards
to its chewy almond granola bars described as "Honey Almond Flax"
under the Kashi brand.
The front label tells consumers the Product is "Made With
Wildflower Honey" across different hues of amber, evocative of
honey, and has "3g Fiber" and "14g Whole Grains." When sold
individually, the packaging also contains a picture of a small pool
of honey, flax seeds, and almonds.
The front label promotes honey as the main, exclusive or at least,
a significant sweetening ingredient. The representations are false
and misleading because the amount of honey is negligible and de
minimis, shown through the ingredient list where honey is the
eighth most predominant ingredient by weight.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. Defendant
sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in
the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at
the expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff known the truth, she would
not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$4.89 for a box of six 1.2 oz bars, excluding tax and sales, higher
than similar products represented in a non-misleading way, and
higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions.
The Defendant is a leading seller of organic and healthy
snacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
KATTIE DEDLOFF: Target Corporation Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Target Corporation, Plaintiff v. Kattie Dedloff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Defendant, Case No. 2211-CC00666 was removed from the Circuit Court
for St. Charles County, MO, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00868 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American big
box department store chain headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Carmen Groves, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City
2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 474-6550
Email: rcgroves@shb.com
KEYES COMPANY: Navarro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Alex Navarro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE KEYES COMPANY, Case No. 154801684 (Fla. 11th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Aug. 5, 2022), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees against the Defendant under the laws of the United
States arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked overtime on innumerable occasions. The
Plaintiff was paid a salary and was never paid overtime for the
hours he worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 per week.
Therefore, the Plaintiff claims the difference between the
Plaintiff's average hourly rate and the applicable minimum wage
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff
is also owed overtime wages at the rate of time-and-one-half of his
hourly-rate for the hours that went uncompensated and which were
untimely paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked (and still works) in the job title "Accountant
- Property Management" and handles non-exempt office duties for the
Defendant.
The Defendant is a company that regularly transacts business within
Miami-Dade County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin E. Leach, Esq.
FEILER & LEACH, P.L.
The American Airlines Building
901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite # 300
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone (305) 441-8818
Facsimile (305) 441-8081
Email: mel@flmlegal.com
erodriguez@flmlegal.com
KIA AMERICA INC: Fruhling Sues Over Defective Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Fruhling, Roger Mason, Jade Burke, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai
Motor America, Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00451-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 3, 2022), is brought arising
from a defect in the Defendants' vehicles which make them easy to
steal, unsafe, and worth less than they should be, if they did not
have the defect. In violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices
Act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
The Defendants did not disclose this defect, which is a material
fact, and a fact that a reasonable person would rely on when
purchasing a vehicle. The Defendants sold these Defective Vehicles
(defined as: "all Kia models from 2011-2021, and all Hyundai models
from 2011-2021") at multiple locations throughout the state of Ohio
and the United States. The Defendants manufactured, designed, and
put into the stream of commerce the Defective Vehicles. Defendants
did so without disclosing the fact that these vehicles had a defect
which made them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than they
should be, if they did not have the defect. Even now, Defendants
admit there is a theft problem with these vehicles but refuse to
fix them, compensate consumers, or otherwise take actions to solve
the problems their Defective Vehicles are causing.
The Defendants concealed or otherwise failed to disclose, reveal,
or provide notice to customers, including the Plaintiffs, in the
Defendants' advertising, labeling or otherwise that these vehicles
are defective and are not fit for the ordinary purposes for which
the vehicles are used in that they are easy to steal, unsafe, and
worth less than they should be, if they were not defective, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased and/or own a Defective Vehicle that was
manufactured, produced, distributed, and/or sold by the
Defendants.
Kia America, Inc. is engaged in the business of testing,
developing, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, distributing,
promoting, supplying and/or selling, either directly or indirectly,
through third parties and/or related entities, the Defective
Vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Futscher, Esq.
FUTSCHER LAW, PLLC
913 N. Oak Drive
Villa Hills, KY 41017
Phone: (859) 912-2394
Email: david@futscherlaw.com
- and -
Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
Chelsea M. Pierce, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
221 West Lexington Ave., Ste. 400
Independence, MO 64051
Phone: (816)836-5050
Fax: (816)836-8966
Email: kbm@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
kds@hfmlegal.com
cmp@hfmlegla.com
KIA AMERICA INC: Hall Files Suit in D. Nebraska
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc. The
case is styled as Amber Hall, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America,
Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-03155-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., Aug. 2, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability.
Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet customers' lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew K. Smith, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 900
221 West Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64051
Phone: (816) 836-5050
Fax: (816) 836-8966
Email: aks@hfmlegal.com
KIA AMERICA INC: McNerney Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katelyn Mcnerney, Sherry Mason, Camri Nelson, Cameron Cunningham,
and Allison Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, and
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation, Case No.
8:22-cv-01548 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2022), is brought for damages
and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other persons
and entities nationwide who purchased or leased 2011-2022 Kia
vehicles or 2015-2022 Hyundai vehicles equipped with traditional
"insert-and-turn" steel key ignition systems, as a result of the
Defendants' actions of failing to disclose and actively concealing
the Defect.
Unlike most vehicles, the Class Vehicles are not equipped with an
"immobilizer" preventing them from being started unless a code is
transmitted from the Vehicle's specific smart key. This security
vulnerability (the "Defect") makes the Vehicles incredibly easy to
steal, allowing thieves to steal Vehicles by simply opening the
steering columns and using a common USB charging cord or similar
metal object to start the engine.
Viral videos on TikTok and YouTube give step-by-step instructions
on
how to steal Class Vehicles without a key, and reports of stolen
Kia and Hyundai Vehicles have skyrocketed across the country. In
fact, the "Kia Challenge," widely shared on social media platforms,
dares people to break in and then use a USB cord to start the cars.
The videos show teens and young adults going for joy rides and in
some cases, even abandoning or crashing the cars. The incidents
have turned dangerous, with suspects and bystanders being seriously
injured or killed following unsafe driving and crashes related to
the thefts.
The Defendants have long known or should have known of the Defect
from multiple sources. According to Police, thieves have been
exploiting a security flaw in Kia vehicles made since 2011 and
Hyundai vehicles made since 2015. Yet the Defendants failed to
disclose and actively concealed the Defect from the public, and
continue to manufacture, distribute, and sell the Vehicles without
disclosing the Defect, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased or leased the Class Vehicles.
The Kia America, Inc. is a California corporation who manufactured
the Class Vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, Washington 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (213) 330-7150
Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
KIA AMERICA INC: Yeghiaian Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Cynthia Yeghiaian, Jeff Plazam on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kia America,
Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Kia America Technical Center,
Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01440-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet customers' lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Gregory Adams, Esq.
ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES
21782 Ventura Boulevard No 10005
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (805) 229-1529
Fax: (805) 258-7415
Email: thomasgadams@gmail.com
- and -
Rhett Thomas Francisco, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RHETT FRANCISCO
638 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 105
Oak Park, CA 91377
Phone: (818) 319-9879
Email: rhett_francisco_law@yahoo.com
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Kiromic BioPharma, Inc.: (i)
pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about July 2, 2021 (the "IPO"); and/or (ii) between June 25,
2021 and August 13, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important October 4, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.
If you purchased Kiromic BioPharma securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the Kiromic BioPharma class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8051 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 4, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
Investors are encouraged to select qualified counsel with a track
record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices
do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer
recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities
class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or
partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in
selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO documents
failed to disclose that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") had, prior to the filing of the IPO documents, imposed a
clinical hold, and in fact, contained statements indicating that it
had not. Given that the IPO closed on July 2, 2021, more than
thirty (30) days after Kiromic BioPharma submitted the
Investigational New Drug ("IND") applications for its two
immunotherapy product candidates, investors were assured that no
clinical hold had been issued and clinical trials would commence.
Kiromic BioPharma, however, received communications from the FDA on
June 16 and 17, 2021, informing it that the FDA was placing the IND
applications for its two candidate products on clinical hold. The
IPO documents failed to disclose this information, instead
representing that clinical testing was expected to proceed in the
third quarter of 2021. Clinical testing did not proceed in the
third quarter of 2021, nor was it likely given the FDA's imposition
of a clinical hold. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827 [GN]
KLINGENSTEIN FIELDS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Klingenstein, Fields
& Co., L.P. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Klingenstein,
Fields & Co., L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-07239 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Klingenstein, Fields & Co., L.P. -- https://www.klingenstein.com/
-- provides wealth management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
KROGER CO: Class Cert. Bid Must Be Filed by Nov. 30, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE, et al., v.
THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary
pretrial order as follows:
-- Any motion for class certification November 30, 2023
shall be filed by:
-- End of Class discovery due by: October 25, 2023
-- The Plaintiffs to move for class November 30, 2023
certification and file any expert
reports in support thereof by:
-- The Defendant to depose Plaintiffs' January 31, 2024
experts by:
-- The Defendant to file opposition March 1, 2024
to class certification and file
any expert reports in support
thereof by:
-- The Plaintiffs to depose March 31, 2024
Defendant's experts by:
The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger, is an American retail company
that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AtkPuO at no extra charge.[CC]
KROGER CO: Sumner Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Sumner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-01950 (S.D. Ill., Aug.
21, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's
false and misleading marketing practices with regards to its coffee
creamer that has been "ultra-pasteurized" under the Kroger brand
("Product").
The representations are consistent and uniform across the various
flavors of Kroger coffee creamers, which include French Vanilla and
Hazelnut. The front label representations include the statement of
identity, "Coffee Creamer," directly above "Ultra-Pasteurized,"
with no mention the Product is "Non-Dairy." By representing the
Product as a "Coffee Creamer" which has been "Ultra-Pasteurized,"
without any "Non-Dairy" statement, consumers expect dairy
ingredients. However, the Product lacks cream and other dairy
ingredients beyond a de minimis amount of sodium caseinate, a milk
derivative, shown through the ingredient list.
The Product contains other representations and omissions which are
false and misleading. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at
higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. The
Plaintiff paid more for the Product than she would have if she knew
it did not contain cream nor any dairy ingredients beyond a
negligible amount of a milk derivative, and would have paid less or
not purchased it.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$3.99 for 32 FL OZ (946 mL), excluding tax and sales, higher than
similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher
than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions.
The Defendant is the largest grocer in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LASHLINER INC: Faces Weathers Suit over Illegal Membership Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
behindmlm.com reports that a second class-action has been filed
against Tori Belle Cosmetics in the state of Washington. Subject
matter is much the same as the first state-level class-action,
filed on August 2nd.
Class Plaintiff Leslie Shon Weathers claims she was improperly
charged $9 a month for 25 months. Tori Belle charges affiliates $9
a month as an ongoing membership fee. Weathers, a Texas resident,
claims she joined Tori Belle in January 2020.
In January 2020, Plaintiff joined Tori Belle as an Affiliate and
placed an order for approximately $18 of products. Plaintiff
signed the Agreement, but never became active in Tori Belle: she
never sold any product, nor recruited any other salespeople as part
of her downline. She was aware only of the first $9 charge, which
gave her access to the Tori Belle website. She was unaware that
Tori Belle continued to quietly charge her credit card each month.
For 25 months after the month in which she signed up to be an
Affiliate, Tori Belle continued to charge her $9 each month. On
August 11, 2022, Plaintiff emailed Tori Belle and asked the company
to cancel her account. On August 15, 2022, Tori Belle again
charged Plaintiff a $9 fee. The $9 a month might be easy to miss,
but not seeing it on your CC statement for 25 consecutive months?
That's a bit difficult to believe.
Weathers cites Tori Belle's Affiliate Terms, revised in 2019 and
current when she signed up, which provides two reasons for
termination.
1. Should an Affiliate fail to pay their monthly access fee, the
Affiliate's business will be put on suspension and they will not be
eligible for commissions or bonuses for that month until all
past-due access fees are paid. If the Affiliate fails to pay their
access fee for three (3) consecutive months, the Affiliate
Agreement will be terminated.
2. Following a Affiliate's non-renewal of their Affiliate
Agreement, termination for inactivity, (less than $300 of retail
sales within a six month period), voluntary or involuntary
termination of their Affiliate Agreement (all of these methods are
collectively referred to as "termination"), the former Affiliate
shall have no right, title, claim or interest to the marketing
organization which they operated, or any commission or bonus from
the personal retail sales generated by the organization.
An Affiliate whose business is terminated will lose all rights as
an Affiliate.
The first clause doesn't apply, as Weathers continued to pay her
monthly fee as charged. Weathers argues that the second clause
applies, as Weathers never made any retail sales.
Tori Belle did not cease charging Affiliates monthly fees after
their Agreements were terminated due to inactivity or periods of
nonpayment. Instead, Tori Belle continued charging former
Affiliates monthly fees, sometimes for years after their Agreements
were terminated.
Tori Belle was so aggressive in its overcharging, that some
Affiliates had to cancel their credit cards to avoid being charged
because their complaints to Tori Belle were ignored. Further, Tori
Belle made a business decision not to reverse erroneous charges
even when Affiliates complained, opting instead to just keep the
money.
Weathers seeks to establish and represent a nation-wide Class that
may potentially number in the thousands. The exact number of Class
members and their addresses can be ascertained from the Defendant's
records through discovery. If granted permission to proceed,
Weathers hopes to establish:
(a) Whether Defendant violated its own Agreement;
(b) The legality of Defendant's assessment of fees to
individuals who had separated from the company; and
(c) Whether Plaintiff and Class members were damaged as a
result of Defendant's practices
Weather's own overcharging over 24 months amounts to $216.
The filed Class Complaint states the amount in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Even if there were 10,000 Tori Belle affiliates who were
overcharged $216 each, that would still only come to $2.1 million.
Tori Belle's parent company, LashLiner, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy on August 3rd in the Western District of Washington
bankruptcy court, listing $5.2 million in liabilities at the end of
FY 2021. Weathers' class-action was filed on August 16th. [GN]
LAWTON, OK: Wilson Files ADA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Lawton.
The case is styled as Andre Wilson, as a (party of one) and on
behalf of individuals who are similarly situated v. City of Lawton,
Michael Cleghorn, Stan Booker, John Ratliff, Onreka Johnson, Kelea
L. Fisher, Frank V. Jensen, Neil West, Michael Jones, in their
official capacities, Case No. 5:22-cv-00716-G (W.D. Okla., Aug. 19,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Amer. w/Disabilities
– Other for Civil Rights Act.
Lawton -- https://www.lawtonok.gov/ -- is a city in southwest
Oklahoma. Interactive exhibits at the Museum of the Great Plains
include a trading post and a schoolhouse.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
LEARNING JOURNEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Learning Journey
International, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Learning
Journey International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07162-VEC (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Learning Journey International -- https://tlji.com/ -- is a
consumer goods online selling platform selling quality educational
& toy products for children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LENOX ADVISORS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lenox Advisors, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Lenox Advisors, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07240 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lenox Advisors -- https://www.lenoxadvisors.com/ -- is a financial
services company offering financial planning, asset management,
insurance, and risk management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
LETTUCE ENTERTAIN: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Chicago restaurant operator Lettuce Entertain You has been served
with a class action lawsuit, accusing it of allegedly improperly
padding its profits by adding "deceptive surcharges and processing
fees" to customer checks, "under the veneer of
Covid-19 impacts."
On Aug. 16, attorney James X. Bormes, of Chicago, and others with
the firms Kerkonian Dajani, of Evanston, and The Khowaja Law Firm,
of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Lettuce
Entertain You Enterprises and its subsidiary, Do-Rite Tinley LLC.
Do-Rite Tinley operates the Do-Rite Chicken and Donuts shop in
south suburban Tinley Park. It is one of seven Do-Rite locations in
Chicago and the suburbs operating under the LEYE banner.
According to the complaint, for at least the past two years,
Lettuce Entertain You has allegedly added surcharges and fees of
3-4% to customers' checks. However, according to the complaint, the
company has not notified customers of the additional fees before
adding them to their final bills.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff James Maher,
identified only as a resident of Cook County.
According to the complaint, Maher purchased food at the Do-Rite
location in Tinley Park on Feb. 20, 2022. He claims the restaurant
added a 3% surcharge to his bill, but did not tell him they were
doing so until he learned of it from his purchase receipt, after
paying for his food.
The complaint asserts LEYE and Do-Rite have added the fees as a way
of adjusting to revenue losses stemming from the onset of the
Covid-19 pandemic, but without appearing to raise prices.
"The costs of doing business across all markets have increased as a
result of Covid-19," the plaintiffs said in their complaint. "The
restaurant industry has particularly been impacted.
"However, instead of factoring any increased operation costs into
their pricing model (as every other industry has been forced to do)
and simply adjusting the visible advertised price of their menu
items so customers are informed, Defendants (LEYE and Do-Rite)
regularly and unlawfully add these deceptive surcharges to their
customers' bills without authorization or notification."
The plaintiffs accused LEYE and Do-Rite of violating the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as
counts of fraud and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs are seeking to expand the action to include anyone
in Illinois who paid such LEYE surcharges since 2017.
The lawsuit is asking the court to order LEYE and Do-Rite to pay
unspecified damages, including restitution and disgorgement of
profits from the surcharges and fees, plus attorney fees.
In addition to Bormes, plaintiffs are represented by attorneys
Catherine P. Sons, of the Law Office of James X. Bormes; Donald J.
Pechous and Paul A. Castiglione, of the Khowaja Firm; and Elizabeth
M. Al-Dajani and Karnig S. Kerkonian, of the Kerkonian firm.
A spokesperson for Lettuce Entertain You declined to discuss the
lawsuit, saying LEYE does not comment on pending litigation. [GN]
LISA FRANK INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lisa Frank, Inc. The
case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lisa Frank, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07164 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lisa Frank Inc. -- http://www.lisafrank.com/-- is a private
for-profit company formed in 1979, under its founder and CEO, Lisa
Frank and is known for its colorful, imaginative designs featured
on a variety of media, such as school supplies and stickers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Island Plastic
Surgical Group, P.C. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Long Island
Plastic Surgical Group, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-04989-LDH-TAM
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Long Island Plastic Surgical Group -- https://www.lipsg.com/ -- has
been dedicated to providing cosmetic and reconstructive plastic
surgery for over 70 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LOTTERY.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Lottery.com Inc. ("Lottery.com" or "the Company") ( LTRY). The
class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Lottery.com
securities between November 15, 2021 and July 29, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified that
they have until October 18, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/lottery-com-ltry-class-action
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Lottery.com failed to maintain
appropriate accounting controls. The Company also failed to
maintain appropriate controls over financial reporting including
revenue recognition and the reporting of cash. The Company was not
in compliance with laws related to the sale of lottery tickets.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Lottery.com, investors suffered
damages.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Lottery.com class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Lottery.com class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the
lead plaintiff process please refer
to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact Info:
Jim Baker, Esq.
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Investor Relations
Tel: (619) 814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
LOTTERY.COM INC: Bronstein Reminds of Oct. 18 Lead Plaintiff Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Lottery.com, Inc.
("Lottery.com" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LTRY) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or
otherwise acquired Lottery.com securities between November 15, 2021
and July 29, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ltry.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal accounting
controls; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting pertaining to revenue recognition and the
reporting of cash; (3) the Company was not in compliance with state
and federal laws governing the sale of lottery tickets; and (4) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
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:
www.bgandg.com/ltry or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Lottery.com you have until October 18, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share
in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
MAJOR LEAGUE: $185M Settlement in FLSA Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett and Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions,
report that a California judge gave preliminary approval to a $185
million settlement between Major League Baseball (MLB) and classes
of minor leaguers who claimed they were underpaid by the league.
On Aug. 19, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero said in a hearing
that he would green light the deal at this stage, although he
expressed concern that the terms wouldn't give players enough time
to opt out, Law360 reports.
"It seems like preliminarily a terrific settlement," Judge Spero
said. "I'll save my final comments for the final hearing."
The settlement will resolve the eight-year litigation that claimed
minor leaguers were paid as little as $1,100 a month in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs seek $55.5 million of the settlement,
and the leftover $120 million will be distributed to the class and
then donated to charity.
MLB Minor League Pay Class Action Lawsuit Overview:
Who: Major League Baseball and classes of minor leaguers have
reached a settlement agreement to resolve claims the latter was
underpaid.
Why: Minor leaguers claim MLB violated state labor laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Where: The class action lawsuit is being litigated in California
federal court.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has reached a deal with classes of
minor leaguers claiming they were underpaid by the league.
News of the agreement, which was presented to a California federal
judge, came only days before the minor leaguer's claims were set to
go to trial on June 1.
Counsel for the minor leaguers and the MLB told the judge that a
settlement in principle was in place and asked for the trial and
all pretrial proceedings to be stayed as the details of the
agreement are worked out.
The MLB and minor leaguers said they plan to file a request for
preliminary approval for the settlement agreement by July 11.
The judge overseeing the case accepted the request and scheduled a
case management conference to take place on Aug. 19, Law360
reports.
"The parties are pleased to inform the court that they have reached
a settlement of the matter in principle," counsel for the MLB and
the minor leaguers said in a letter to the judge." The parties have
agreed upon a confidential memorandum of understanding. The
settlement is subject to ratification by the respective parties,
and we are in the process of preparing the settlement documents."
MLB Class Action Alleges Violations of Fair Labor Standards Act,
State Labor Laws
The minor leaguers filed the complaint against MLB back in 2014,
arguing they were paid as little as $1,100 a month while accusing
the league of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The current lawsuit includes four certified classes based on state
labor laws in Florida, Arizona and California and then a collective
action under the FLSA, Law360 reports.
In March, the court found MLB at fault for claims of minimum wage
violations in Arizona and California with $1.8 million awarded to
the California class, Law360 reports.
Minor leaguers in the California Class went on the defensive in
December when they implored the court to deny MLB's request to have
testimony from their expert witness excluded.
What do you think of the settlement between MLB and minor league
players? Let us know in the comments!
The letter was submitted on behalf of the MLB and minor leaguers by
Elise M. Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP; Clifford H. Pearson of
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP; and Stephen M. Tillery of Korein
Tillery, LLC.
The MLB Minor League Pay Class Action Lawsuit is Senne, et al. v.
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-00608, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. [GN]
MAJOR LEAGUE: Concepcion, et al., Seek to Certify Player Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Concepcion, Aldemar
Burgos and Sidney Duprey Conde, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
BASEBALL, an unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01017-ADC (D.P.R.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying a
class of:
"plaintiffs consisting of all persons, from January 1, 2016,
and continuing through the date of Judgment, who played
professional Minor League Baseball for one of the the
Defendants' Minor League teams pursuant to a uniform Minor
League player contract."
The Plaintiffs bring this motion seeking to certify their claims
for antitrust violations and for incidental declaratory and
injunctive relief against each of the named defendants, jointly and
severally.
The Defendants include ROB MANFRED; ALLAN HUBER "BUD" SELIG; KANSAS
CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC.; MARLINS TEAMCO LLC; SAN FRANCISCO
BASEBALL ASSOCIATES LLC; BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P.; ANGELS
BASEBALL LP; CHICAGO WHITE SOX LTD.; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC;
COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD.; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE,
LLLP; THE CINCINNATI REDS, LLC; HOUSTON ASTROS LLC; ATHLETICS
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP;
CLEVELAND GUARDIANS BASEBALL COMPANY, LLC; PADRES L.P.; SAN DIEGO
PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; WASHINGTON
NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES
DODGERS, LLC; LOS ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING CO.; STERLING METS L.P.;
ATLANTA NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; AZPB L.P.; BALTIMORE
ORIOLES, INC.; BALTIMORE ORIOLES, L.P.; THE PHILLIES; PITTSBURGH
ASSOCIATES; NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP; TAMPA BAY RAYS BASEBALL LTD.;
RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC; RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC; CHICAGO CUBS
BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; and
MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.
Major League Baseball is a professional baseball organization and
the oldest major professional sports league in the world. As of
2022, a total of 30 teams play in Major League Baseball -- 15 teams
in the National League and 15 in the American League -- with 29 in
the United States and 1 in Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wutwUQ at no extra charge.[CC]
MARCO DESTIN: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marco Destin, Inc.
The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Marco Destin, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07090 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Marco Destin, Inc., doing business as Alvin's Island --
https://www.alvinsisland.com/ -- is a souvenir shop & beachwear
store strategically located close to the beach.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
MARDEL INC: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mardel, Inc. The case
is styled as Veronica Troche, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Mardel, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07098
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mardel, Inc. -- https://www.mardel.com/ -- operates a chain of
retail stores. The Company sells books, music, office supplies,
gifts, children's products, and educational materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
MASTERPIECES PUZZLE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Masterpieces Puzzle
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Masterpieces Puzzle
Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07167 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MasterPieces Puzzle Company -- https://www.masterpiecesinc.com/ --
provides puzzles, games, toys, crafts, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MAYFLOWER TRANSIT: Ct. Certifies Class, Approves Fees in Greenley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Greenley v. Mayflower
Transit, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00339-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order that the motion for final
approval and motion for fees and expenses are granted as follows:
-- The Court finds and finally certifies the proposed Class
for the purposes of this 19 settlement pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and in conformance with this
Court's Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement.
The certified class definition for settlement purposes is:
a. The Confidential Communication Class for Violation of
Penal Code section 632, consisting of:
"All persons in California who booked a move online
through the Mayflower Gemini program and whose
conversations were recorded without their consent, by
the Defendant, and or its agents, within the one year
prior to the filing of the Complaint."
b. The Cellular Phone Communication Sub-Class for Violation
of Penal Code section 632.7, consisting of:
"All persons in California who booked a move online
through the Mayflower Gemini program and whose cellular
telephone conversations were recorded without their
consent, by Defendant, and or its agents, within the one
year prior to the filing of the Complaint."
-- The Court finds that application of the "benchmark"
percentage of 25% of the common fund is appropriate in this
case.
-- The Court approves the settlement and finds that the
settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and
reasonable, and directs the parties to effectuate the
settlement according to its terms.
-- Specifically, the Court approves the following:
a. Accepting the three late but otherwise valid claims,
which brings the total number of valid claims to 45;
b. Finally approving the class action settlement, including
the common fund in the amount of $1,450,000;
c. Approving attorney fees of $362,500 equal to 25% of the
settlement common fund;
d. Approving reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
aggregate amount of $30,874.12;
e. Approving Settlement Administration expenses of $12,500;
and
f. Approving a service award to Representative Plaintiff in
the amount of $10,000.
Mayflower is an American moving company based in Fenton, Missouri.
Mayflower operates as an agent owned co-op to coordinate loads,
packing, and third-party services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TjXkgI at no extra charge.[CC]
MAZDA MOTOR: Marinova Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Liyila Marinova, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30202201265314CU-BT-CXC was
removed from Superior Court of California County of Orange, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug.
5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01453-FWS-JDE to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. -- http://www.mazdausa.com/-- doing
business as Mazda North American Operations Inc., retails
automobile vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
Emanuel M Starr, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road No 2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Fax: (818) 914-3433
Email: adam@frontierlawcenter.com
manny@frontierlawcenter.com
- and -
Ari Yale Basser, Esq.
Jordan L Lurie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Fax: (917) 463-1044
Email: abasser@pomlaw.com
jllurie@pomlaw.com
- and -
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 225-9040
Fax: (818) 225-9042
Email: robert@starrlaw.com
- and -
Theodore Richard Tang, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT STARR
23901 Calabasas Road Suite No 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 225-9040
Fax: (818) 225-9042
Email: theodore@starrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amir M Nassihi, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 544-1900
Fax: (415) 391-0281
Email: anassihi@shb.com
- and -
Rachel Aleeza Straus, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 285-8330
Fax: (424) 204-9093
Email: rstraus@shb.com
MDL 2804: Washington Cty., Va. Received $40,000 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Tennis of heraldcourier.com reports that area municipalities
have begun receiving payments from a 2018 lawsuit that won damages
from opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmaceutical
companies to help compensate for the devastating effects the pain
killers caused individuals, families and society throughout
Southwest Virginia.
Washington County, Virginia, has received more than $40,000 as part
of a class-action lawsuit against the opioid manufacturers .
The lawsuit was filed in 2018 in Washington County Circuit Court
and, after joining with multiple plaintiffs, was later transferred
to federal court in Ohio, Lucy Phillips, the Washington County
attorney said. The multi-party lawsuit sought money from opioid
manufacturers, distributors and pharmaceutical companies in
response to the burden the scourge of opioid abuse has placed on
local governments, including law enforcement, the education system
and health care facilities, Phillips said.
"It's a huge, federal, class-action lawsuit," Phillips said.
Several other local governments have also joined the suit,
including the city of Bristol, Virginia. Bristol City Manager Randy
Eads said the city expects to receive about $17,000 as the first of
what is expected to be several payments. Other localities across
Southwest Virginia involved in the suit with Washington County
include the city of Norton, Dickenson County, and Lee County
Payments are being administered by the Virginia Opioid Abatement
Authority and are based on a number of factors, including how many
emergency room visits have involved opioid abuse, Phillips said.
So far, the county has received $40,500.84 in the first payment.
"There are going to be multiple settlements. It is over several
years. There are a number of defendants involved. It is a moving
target right now," Phillips said. "At this point, the Washington
County Board of Supervisors has a tentative plan to establish a
committee to decide how the funds will be spent."
According to Phillips, the Washington County Board of Supervisors
is slated to discuss the matter at a meeting in September or
October. [GN]
MEDICREDIT INC: Jordan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medicredit, Inc. The
case is styled as Lonnie Jordan, on behalf of himself and a class
of similarly situated individuals v. Medicredit, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-00884 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
MediCredit is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
MEDQUEST PHARMACY: Buechler Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medquest Pharmacy, et
al. The case is styled as James T. Buechler, and all others
similarly situated v. Medquest Pharmacy, Innovations Group,
UpHealth, Case No. 2:22-cv-00540-CMR (D. Utah, Aug. 24, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Medquest Pharmacy -- https://medquest.com/ -- is a full-service
compound and retail pharmacy that is licensed in all 50 states and
Puerto Rico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles H. Thronson, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
201 S Main St., Ste. 1800
PO Box 45898
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
Phone: (801) 532-1234
Email: ecf@parsonsbehle.com
MERCEDES BENZ USA: Betancourt Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes Benz USA
LLC. The case is styled as Sergio Betancourt, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Mercedes Benz USA LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-01354-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Mercedes Benz USA, LLC -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- is a
Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for passenger cars in the
United States, headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 225-9040
Fax: (818) 225-9042
Email: robert@starrlaw.com
META PLATFORMS: Settles Location Tracking Class Suit for $37.5-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Meta Platforms
Inc (META.O) reached a $37.5 million settlement of a lawsuit
accusing the parent of Facebook of violating users' privacy by
tracking their movements through their smartphones without
permission.
A preliminary settlement of the proposed class action was filed on
Aug. 22 in San Francisco federal court, and requires a judge's
approval.
It resolved claims that Facebook violated California law and its
own privacy policy by gathering data from users who turned off
Location Services on their mobile devices.
The users said that while they did not want to share their
locations with Facebook, the company nevertheless inferred where
they were from their IP (internet protocol) addresses, and used
that information to send them targeted advertising.
The Aug. 22 settlement covers people in the United States who used
Facebook after Jan. 30, 2015.
Meta denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. It did not
immediately respond on Aug. 23 to requests for comment.
In June 2018, Facebook and Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg told the
U.S. Congress that the Menlo Park, California-based company uses
location data "to help advertisers reach people in particular
areas."
As an example, it said users who dined at particular restaurants
might receive posts from friends who also ate there, or ads from
businesses that wanted to provide services nearby.
The lawsuit began in November 2018. Lawyers for the plaintiffs may
seek up to 30% of the Aug. 22 settlement for legal fees, settlement
papers show.
The cases is Lundy et al v Facebook Inc, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No. 18-06793. [GN]
MICHAELS STORES: 9th Cir. to Test SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Appelbaum and Stephanie L. Denker of Saul Ewing Arnstein &
Lehr LLP, in an article for Bloomberg Law, wrote that the US Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit during oral argument on July 26 in
Armstrong v. Michaels Stores Inc. grappled with the impact of the
US Supreme Court's ruling in Morgan v. Sundance Inc., a seminal
case that resolved a circuit split concerning the test for
determining when a party has waived its right to arbitrate.
Following Morgan, the guiding question is: Under the totality of
the circumstances, did the party seeking to compel arbitration
knowingly relinquish its right to arbitrate by acting
inconsistently with that right?
Courts like the Ninth Circuit previously required a finding of
prejudice to waive the right to arbitrate. They are now trying to
determine what conduct they should consider in answering that
question and whether a certain action, by itself, is determinative
of the entire inquiry.
Questions that may guide a court include: Is there a specific
amount of time that always will lead to a finding of waiver? Is
removal of the case from state to federal court indicative of a
waiver? Does the filing of a dispositive motion waive the right of
a party to arbitrate?
Although no ruling was made on the record, it appears there will
not be a one-size-fits-all approach for finding a waiver. The Ninth
Circuit is not likely to create a bright-line rule for what types
of actions are inconsistent with one's arbitration right. Instead,
it will likely be a sliding scale. Based on the panel's commentary,
we believe:
Holistic Approach Likely
Removing a case to federal court will not by itself constitute
waiver of the right to arbitrate. On the other hand, filing a
dispositive motion in most cases will be the determinative factor.
The amount of time that passed between filing the complaint and the
motion to compel arbitration would only be one factor in the
overall analysis. The extent of discovery taken -- and on what
topics -- will be another factor courts are likely to consider.
Failing to raise arbitration as an affirmative defense in the
answer and/or during the case management conference is more likely
than not to support a finding of waiver.
Courts are likely to take a holistic approach and will weigh
factors on a case-by-case basis. It is unclear whether one factor
or action (or inaction) will weigh more heavily than others in
determining whether a party has waived its right to arbitrate.
Indeed, in the Armstrong case, although the case was removed to
federal court where it was pending for 10-plus months, Michaels did
not engage in substantive motion practice; instead, it propounded
limited discovery focused on the non-arbitrable claims at issue.
Perhaps most important, was that Michaels waited to see what the
Supreme Court would say about class action waivers in employment
contracts in the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis before it
moved to compel arbitration. Those facts may play a significant
role in the outcome of the case.
In short, it appears the inquiry will be more than just the delay
in moving to compel. Instead, courts will weigh what actions were
taken following the filing of the complaint and if any of them were
inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. In other words, courts
will focus on what the party did during the period of time when it
was weighing its options to litigate versus arbitrate.
So, what should companies consider when debating whether to move to
compel arbitration?
Inferring Intention to Waive Arbitration
The threshold inquiry needs to be: "Can the court infer from my
actions that I intended to waive my right to arbitrate in this
specific action?" Until the case law is more developed, companies
should look to prior decisions by the D.C. Circuit and Seventh
Circuit. The two circuits that did not require a showing of
prejudice to find there was a waiver of the right to arbitrate
before Morgan) that analyzed conduct found to be "inconsistent"
with the right to arbitrate.
In the present state of the law, companies that take the wait and
see approach before compelling arbitration are potentially risking
a finding that they waived the right to arbitrate. The lack of
precedent applying the current waiver test may lead to
unpredictable results. Companies that choose to wait or are unsure
whether a particular case is arbitrable should try to preserve
their right to arbitrate by indicating, at every stage in the
proceeding, that it may compel arbitration or invoke the
arbitration clause when available.
As the case law develops, it would be prudent to make whatever path
you take defensible and in accordance with the intent to arbitrate
at a future point in time. [GN]
MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO) publicly
traded securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with MINISO's October 15, 2020
initial public offering (the "IPO") have until October 17, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the MINISO class action
lawsuit. Captioned Ashraf v. MINISO Group Holding Limited, No.
22-cv-05815 (C.D. Cal.), the MINISO class action lawsuit charges
MINISO, certain of its top executives and directors, its
representative in the United States, and the IPO's underwriters
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-miniso-group-holding-limited-class-action-lawsuit-mnso.html
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Headquartered in the People's Republic of China
("PRC"), MINISO purports to be a fast-growing global value retailer
which serves consumers primarily through its large network of
MINISO stores. On October 15, 2020, defendants held the IPO,
issuing approximately 30.4 million American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") to the investing public at $20.00 per ADS, pursuant to the
Registration Statement.
The MINISO class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's Registration
Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned
and controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than
previously stated; (ii) as a result, MINISO concealed its true
costs; (iii) MINISO did not represent its true business model; (iv)
defendants, including MINISO and its Chairman, engaged in planned
unusual and unclear transactions; (v) as a result of at least one
of these transactions, MINISO is at risk of breaching contracts
with PRC authorities; and (vi) MINISO would imminently and
drastically drop its franchise fees.
On July 26, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital published a
report on MINISO which alleged several issues with MINISO,
including that "contrary to [MINISO]'s claims, many MINISO stores
are secretly owned by [MINISO] executives or insiders closely
connected to the chairman" and "[u]ltimately, we believe that there
is overwhelming evidence that MINISO misleads the market about its
core business." As Blue Orca explained, "[o]ur suspicion is that
MINISO realized early in the pre-IPO process that a
brick-and-mortar retailer would be far less attractive to investors
than an asset-light franchise business, so we think that [MINISO]
simply lied about these stores." Blue Orca added that "Chinese
corporate filings also indicate, in our view, that the chairman
siphoned hundreds of millions from the public company through
opaque Caribbean jurisdictions as the middleman in a crooked
headquarters deal." Blue Orca further concluded that "[i]ndependent
evidence, including archived disclosures on MINISO's Chinese
website, reports in Chinese media and interviews with former
employees, indicate that MINISO is a brand in serious peril,"
noting that "MINISO lowered its franchising fee by 63% over the
past two years in a desperate effort to attract franchisees." On
this news, MINISO's ADS price fell nearly 15%.
As of July 27, 2022, MINISO ADSs closed at $5.66 per ADS,
representing more than a 70% decline from the $20.00 IPO price.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any purchaser or acquirer of MINISO
publicly traded securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the MINISO class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the MINISO class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate the MINISO class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the MINISO
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering nearly $1.9
billion for investors last year, more than triple the amount
recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Contact Info:
J.C. Sanchez, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (800) 449-4900 [GN]
MOBILE FIDELITY: Uses Digital Files in Recording, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Blistein, writing for Rolling Stone, reports that a music fan
has filed a class action lawsuit against Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
(MoFi), the record label at the center of an audiophile controversy
over the nature of its supposed hi-fi releases.
MoFi had long been known in record collector circles for its
release series, "Original Master Recording" and "Ultradisc One
Step," which comprised albums that MoFi said were made from either
original master recordings or analog tapes. But in July, Mike
Esposito, a record store owner in Phoenix, shared a video on
YouTube claiming that he'd learned MoFi was actually using digital
files to make its records. Though there was some initial pushback,
engineers at MoFi eventually confirmed Esposito's allegations.
Albums made from analog tapes or original master recordings are
considered to sound better than those that incorporate digital
files into the mastering process because they are as close to the
original studio recording as one can get. The lawsuit argues that
even the most advanced, high quality analog-to-digital transfer
"diminishes the quality and collectability compared to all-analog
recordings."
The new lawsuit against MoFi, obtained by Rolling Stone, was filed
by a North Carolina resident, Adam Stiles. It seeks to define the
representative class as "all persons in the United States who
purchased a Record before July 15, 2022" (Esposito shared his video
on July 14). Stiles says he "purchased various records from MoFi
over the years," most recently a $40 copy of the Pretenders'
self-titled debut that was part of the "Original Master Recording"
series.
The lawsuit claims that MoFi has been "using digital mastering or
digital files -- specifically Direct Stream Digital ('DSD')
technology -- in its production chain" since 2011 while continuing
to "misrepresent to consumers that it did not use digital
mastering, or otherwise failed to disclose the use of digital
mastering, while still charging the same price premium for the
Records as if they were entirely analog recordings."
Joseph J. Madonia, an attorney for Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab based
in Chicago, said in a statement, "We cannot comment on pending
litigation matters at this time." A lawyer for Stiles did not
immediately return Rolling Stone's request for comment.
Stiles' lawsuit notes the various ways MoFi touted its hi-fi
releases, from various interviews with MoFi engineers and employees
to the banners plastered on the front of records to signify which
were supposedly made from analog tapes and which were not. The suit
also highlights a chart included in record sleeves detailing the
pressing process from original master recording to vinyl "without
any intermediary step involving a digital remaster."
The suit alleges that, before 2011, MoFi's claims about its analog
albums were "largely true." But by the end of 2011, the suit
states, 60 percent of MoFi's vinyl releases "incorporated DSD, and
MoFi's last non-DSD recording was released in 2020." The suit goes
on to state that after MoFi's engineers acknowledged the use of
digital technology in July, "MoFi moved quickly to rectify its
misleading advertising and disclose the use of digital remastering
in the Records."
But these "corrections," the suit claims, "demonstrated the breadth
of MoFi's representations and omissions and the material
information MoFi misrepresented or failed to disclose." [GN]
MONTAGE MOUNTAIN: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montage Mountain
Resorts, LP. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Montage Mountain
Resorts, LP., Case No. 2:22-cv-03344-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Aug. 22,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Montage Mountain -- https://www.montagemountainresorts.com/ -- is a
waterpark located right off Interstate 81 in Northeast
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
MULTICARE HEALTH: Partially Averts Drug Diversion Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
class of patients failed to revive its claims against a Washington
hospital where a drug-diverting nurse allegedly exposed them to
hepatitis C and HIV, as these patients hadn't actually been treated
by the nurse, a state appeals court said.
The "general" patient class's claim boiled down to request for
damages for a fear of contracting a communicable disease, but it
was based on MultiCare Health System Inc.'s letter notifying them
of the diversion, not any actual exposure or treatment, the
Washington Court of Appeals said in a split decision. [GN]
NASHVILLE BOOTING: Ladd Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LADD and NICHOLAS
BRINDLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. NASHVILLE BOOTING, LLC, Case No. 3:20-CV-00626 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Eli J. Richardson entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file reply in support of motion for
class certification in excess of five pages.
Nashville Booting is a parking enforcement company in Nashville
providing free parking enforcement services for their clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pNbVDC at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Anthony Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Republican
Congressional Committee. The case is styled as Michael Anthony,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. National
Republican Congressional Committee, a District of Columbia
non-profit organization, Case No. 2:22-cv-03382 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 24,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The National Republican Congressional Committee --
https://www.nrcc.org/ -- is the Republican Hill committee which
works to elect Republicans to the United States House of
Representatives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Silverstein, Esq.
LUNDY, BELDECOS & MILBY
450 N. Narberth Ave., Ste 200
Narberth, PA 19072
Phone: (610) 668-0019
Email: zsilverstein@lbmlaw.com
NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Roberts Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Roberts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB
Management Services, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-01501-WWB-DAB (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
NCB -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a national accounts receivable
management company and debt buyer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
NCI GROUP: Ct. Initially Approves Class Settlement in Gonzalez
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTURO GONZALEZ on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, v. NCI GROUP, INC., dba NCI BUILDING SYSTEMS; and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:18-cv-00948-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order granting the plaintiff's renewed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
-- The Class is conditionally certified for purposes of
settlement only and is defined as follows:
"All non-exempt current and former employees who worked for
the Defendant NCI Group, Inc. as hourly warehouse workers,
industrial workers, shipping checkers, distribution
employees, shipping clerks, packers, stackers, loaders,
packaging clerks, machine operators, receiving clerks,
production workers, and all other similarly situated
employees in California from June 6, 2014 through February
24, 2020."
-- The Court authorizes the retention of Rust Consulting, Inc.
as Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms of the
Amended Stipulation; and David Mara and Jill Vecchi of Mara
Law Firm, PC are conditionally designated Class Counsel.
-- Arturo Gonzalez is conditionally designated Class
Representative.
Mr. Gonzalez filed this putative class action in Merced County
Superior Court on June 6, 2018, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, including warehouse workers, industrial
workers, shipping clerks and other categories of non-exempt, hourly
workers in NCI's employ in 2 California during the four-year period
prior to commencement of this action.
NCI answered the Complaint on July 11, 2018, and removed the case
to this Court on diversity grounds under the Class Action Fairness
Act on July 12, 2018.
NCI Group designs, manufactures, and markets metal products. The
Company offers metal coil coating, components, and building
systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wz1zLk at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK BLACK: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Kasiotis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
JOSEPH KASIOTIS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated New York consumers, v. New York Black Car Operators'
Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-8057, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).
This putative class action is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant, asserting a claim for unjust enrichment arising from the
Defendant's imposition of a surcharge of 2.5% on voluntary,
non-cash tips and gratuities paid by passengers in connection with
the use of black car services.
October 23, 2020, Judge Philip M. Halpern denied defendant's motion
for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for
summary judgment.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 8, 2020, the
Defendant sought a review from the District Court's Order denying
its motion for summary judgment.
On March 3, 2022, a mandate from the Court of Appeals was entered
dismissing Defendant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On August 5, 2022, the Court certified the Summary Judgment Order
for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Any
remaining issues in this case, as well as any enforcement of the
Summary Judgment Order is stayed until: (i) the Second Circuit
issues an order deciding whether to accept the parties' petition
for a permissive appeal; and (ii) should the Second Circuit grant a
permissive appeal, until the final resolution of that appeal.
The appellate case is captioned as New York Black Car Operators'
Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. v. Kasiotis, Case No. 22-1759, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
Aug. 12, 2022.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner New York Black Car Operators' Injury
Compensation Fund, Inc. is represented by:
Seth D. Allen, Esq.
SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP
26 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 344-5400
Plaintiff-Respondent Joseph Kasiotis, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated New York comsumers, is represented
by:
Jeffrey Ian Carton, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (917) 331-0100
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Transmissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of carcomplaints.com reports a Nissan CVT class
action lawsuit alleges the continuously variable transmissions
cause problems with acceleration, hesitation, delays, engine
revving, jerking and stalling.
Nissan has allegedly known about the CVT problems since at least
2013 based on complaints about vehicles that lurched, shook and
suffered transmission failures.
The Nissan CVT class action lawsuit includes: "All individuals who
purchased or leased any 2017-2018 Model Year Nissan Altima,
2018-2019 Model Year Nissan Sentra or 2018-2019 Nissan Versa and
Versa Note vehicle equipped with a CVT in the United States or its
Territories."
The transmission problems can allegedly occur without warning which
cause safety hazards to occupants and others on the roads. Drivers
must allegedly quickly pull off the road or risk a rear-end
collision.
According to the two Nissan owners who sued, the cost to repair the
CVT is extremely high and the automaker has not recalled the
vehicles to repair the CVTs. Nissan has also allegedly not offered
suitable repairs or transmission replacements for free, and Nissan
owners are allegedly not offered reimbursements.
"Defendants regularly deny the existence of the CVT Defect until
after consumers' New Vehicle Limited Warranty Powertrain Coverage
("Powertrain Warranty") has expired or require payment to repair
the CVT Defect even while the Class Vehicles are under warranty."
-- Nissan CVT lawsuit
Louisiana plaintiff Sherrell Moses purchased a used 2018 Nissan
Sentra in April 2021, but about six months later she noticed
transmission problems which got worse over time.
Her Nissan Sentra allegedly hesitates when attempting to pick up
speed after slowing down and when taking off from a stop. The
hesitation is accompanied by excessive revving in which the rpm
meter moves but the vehicle does not accelerate, followed by a jerk
or judder when the vehicle does engage.
The CVT lawsuit doesn't say if the plaintiff had a dealer diagnose
the vehicle or if any repairs were performed.
Tennessee plaintiff Ashle Wilson purchased a used 2017 Nissan
Altima, but about a year later the vehicle began jerking and
hesitating when accelerating from a stop and when attempting to
merge onto the highway.
Even though the class action lawsuit alleges Nissan typically
refuses to replace the transmissions for free even when the
vehicles are covered by warranties, a Nissan dealer did replace the
Altima transmission assembly under warranty.
However, the plaintiff claims the replacement CVT has the same
defects as the original transmission. The plaintiff further claims
the replacement transmission was a used CVT with an unknown number
of miles on it.
The Nissan CVT class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Moses, et al., v.
Nissan of North America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings
PLLC, Turke & Strauss LLP, and Cohen & Malad, LLP. [GN]
NORMANDY, MO: $1.3MM Deal in Civil Rights Suit Wins Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Y. Henderson of St. Louis Public Radio reports that over
22,000 people in the St. Louis region are eligible to receive money
from a $1.3 million class-action settlement that ArchCity Defenders
has reached with the City of Normandy.
The civil rights organization sued the city in 2018, claiming that
the Normandy police department and court violated residents'
constitutional rights from Sept. 10, 2013, to May 12, 2021. The
lawsuit claimed the Normandy municipal judge or police did not
inform the four plaintiffs of their right to an attorney, ask about
their ability to pay bond amounts or fees, or provide alternatives
to paying fines. Normandy police ticketed large numbers of people
during that time, and the city used the court and police department
to bring in revenue for years, said Jack Waldron, managing attorney
of civil litigation at ArchCity Defenders.
"This class action that got settled . . . it's not offering
compensation for specific harms, but more the fact that they, like
everybody else, was jailed by Normandy, only because they were too
poor to afford their fines," Waldron said. "If they had money, they
would have been able to pay it and they would have been able to get
released."
People whom police jailed in Normandy can receive up to $675 for
three days in jail. Those who were fined by Normandy courts can
receive up to $60, and those who had a warrant issued against them
by the city can receive up to $20. Normandy police largely issued
tickets, fees and warrants to Black drivers, a practice Waldron
said is common in St. Louis County municipalities.
According to the Missouri attorney general's 2021 traffic stop
report, Missouri police were 68% more likely to pull over Black
drivers than white drivers. Normandy police issued tickets for
traffic violations to some drivers, and police arrested and jailed
others over warrants they received in Normandy or other
municipalities. Many of those jailed by Normandy police were sent
to holding cells in St. Ann. Police sent those who received tickets
in other counties to each city's jail until they paid their fines.
Waldron said jailing poor people who have debts keeps money flowing
to municipal governments. According to the lawsuit, Normandy
received over $6 million in revenue from the municipal court.
Among those who will receive money from the settlement is Umi
Okoli. Normandy police pulled over Okoli a few years ago, and a
police officer said she ran a stop sign. Police issued Okoli a
ticket and arrested her for failure to pay and failure to appear in
court in several other county municipalities.
Okoli, one of four plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said that while
working as a teacher she couldn't afford to pay her tickets or
fines. The arrest led to her losing her job and driver's license
and also affected her social life. She hopes the settlement will
hold Normandy's police officers and court system accountable for
the hurt and harm caused her and other claimants.
"I want practices to change," Okoli said. "I want municipalities to
find a different way to get tax money for their police officers."
[GN]
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: FHFA Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., filed with the
Supreme Court of United States an application for an extension of
time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the matter styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.,
Applicants v. New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, et al., Case No.
22A144.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2022, Judge
Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Amended Order and Final Judgment in
the lawsuit titled NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVASTAR
MORTGAGE, INC., NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING CORPORATION, SCOTT F.
HARTMAN, GREGORY S. METZ, W. LANCE ANDERSON, MARK HERPICH, RBS
SECURITIES INC. f/k/a GREENWICH CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., d/b/a RBS
GREENWICH CAPITAL, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., WELLS FARGO
ADVISORS, LLC f/k/a WACHOVIA SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
08-cv-5310 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court held that the parties' Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest
of the Settlement Class Members for the settlement of all claims by
Lead Plaintiff New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund and the other
Class Representative Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, on
behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, against Defendants
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation,
Scott F. Hartman, Gregory S. Metz, W. Lance Anderson, Mark Herpich,
RBS Securities Inc. f/k/a Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., d/b/a
RBS Greenwich Capital, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and Wells
Fargo Advisors, LLC f/k/a Wachovia Securities LLC in the Action,
and should be approved.
The Court certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, a class
consisting of: "all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly offered Certificates representing interests in any of the
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trusts, NovaStar Home Equity Loan Series
2006-3, 2006-4, 2006-5, 2006-6, 2007-1, or 2007-2 Offerings, prior
to May 21, 2008, pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement and accompanying prospectus filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation a/k/a
NovaStar Certificates Financing Corporation on June 16, 2006 (No.
333-134461), and who were damaged thereby, except those Persons
that timely and validly requested exclusion from the class pursuant
to and in accordance with the terms of the Preliminary Approval
Order. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are all Defendants,
their officers and directors at all relevant times, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which any Defendant has or
had a controlling interest, except for any Investment Vehicle."
Plaintiffs New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund and Iowa Public
Employees' Retirement System are appointed as Class Representatives
of the Settlement Class, and the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC ("Lead Counsel") is appointed as lead counsel for the
Settlement Class.
The Court approved the Settlement, and finds that the Settlement
is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class Members.
The Court has received one objection to the Settlement, submitted
by the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") in its capacity as
conservator of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie
Mac"). The Court finds and concludes that FHFA and Freddie Mac's
objections to the adequacy of notice and interpretation of 12
U.S.C. Section 4617(f) (objection to subject matter jurisdiction of
Court) are without merit and, therefore, overrules it in its
entirety. FHFA, which succeeded to the interests of Freddie Mac in
September 2008, is not a member of the Settlement Class; that class
is defined as persons or entities who inter alia "purchased or
otherwise acquired interests in the specified NovaStar Offerings
prior to May 21, 2008."
Judge Failla held that the Action and all claims contained therein
are dismissed on the merits with prejudice as to the Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class Members. The parties are to bear their own
costs, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.
Objectors Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., file this
application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari from August 31, 2022 to September 30, 2022.[BN]
Objectors-Appellants-Applicants FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et
al., are represented by:
Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
NTY FRANCHISE COMPANY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NTY Franchise
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. NTY Franchise Company,
LLC d/b/a Children's Orchard, Case No. 1:22-cv-07166 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
NTY Franchise -- https://www.ntyfranchise.com/ -- offers
techniques, training, knowledge, tools, support, retail and
franchising services for resale stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
OHIO: Faces Suit Over Illegal Lamination Fees of Driver Licenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
tribtoday.com reports that former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann,
formerly of Liberty, is among those representing plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit that suggests government and King Bureaucracy
truly do exist only to serve themselves. In this case, the Bureau
of Motor Vehicles is being accused of charging 3,423,315 Buckeye
State residents lamination fees long after the BMV stopped
laminating driver's licenses onsite.
"Despite the fact that the procedures changed as of July 2, 2018,
the legislation authorizing the collection of the lamination fee
did not change until July 3, 2019, and deputy registrars continued
to collect the $1.50 lamination fee per Ohio credential issues even
though they were no longer performing the services for which the
lamination fee was meant to compensate them," the lawsuit says,
according to a report by WCMH-Columbus.
While $1.50 here and there might not seem worth a fight,
$5,134,972.50 certainly is. That is how much the lawsuit says Ohio
BMV collected during the lapse. (And no, Dann is not suggesting
plaintiffs be sent $1.50 each. He told WCMH his office is proposing
Ohio residents be given a credit toward their next BMV visit or
renewal.)
Meanwhile, Ohio isn't planning to let that $1.50 per person slip
through its fingers, as it simply has changed the name of the fee
and will continue to charge it. Now, it is a "document
authentication fee."
In other words, it sure seems like lawmakers and bureaucrats don't
care whether there's a good reason to skim a little more money from
Ohioans, they just believe what's yours is theirs, and will play
whatever shell game is necessary to take it. [GN]
ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Forby Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
One Technologies, L.P., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled VICKIE FORBY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated in Illinois, Plaintiff v.
ONE TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.; ONE TECHNOLOGIES MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; ONE
TECHNOLOGIES CAPITAL, L.L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-856, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas.
Ms. Forby filed this class action on April 24, 2015, in Illinois
state court that was later removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois on July 14, 2015. Ms. Forby
brought claims against One Tech for violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") and
unjust enrichment under Illinois law.
In the notice of removal, One Tech did not reference arbitration
but rather argued that Ms. Forby's claims were baseless, and that
no class should be certified. On July 21, 2015, it filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative,
moved to transfer the case for forum non conveniens, arguing that
Ms. Forby's claims were subject to arbitration in Texas and that an
Illinois district court could not compel arbitration outside of the
confines of its district. On Sept. 4, 2015, One Tech filed an
opposed motion to stay discovery until the Illinois district court
ruled on the motion to dismiss.
On March 25, 2016, the Illinois district court issued a Memorandum
and Order transferring the case to the Northern District of Texas.
On May 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
against the Defendants. On July 22, 2020, the court directed the
Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint no later than August
12, 2020.
On November 12, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file fourth amended complaint and motion for relief from order or
judgment pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Also on November 12, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, and position on discovery.
On July 21, 2022, Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered a Memorandum Opinion
and Order, denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration;
denying Plaintiff's opposed motion for relief from order or
judgment pursuant to Rule 60; and denying as moot Plaintiff's
opposed motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as One Technologies v. Forby, Case
No. 22-10770, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
filed on Aug. 11, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants One Technologies, L.P., et al., are
represented by:
Jonathan Ryan Childers, Esq.
LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, L.L.P.
2100 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 981-3810
- and -
Andrew Patrick LeGrand, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 698-3405
- and -
Jeffrey M. Tillotson, Esq.
TILLOTSON JOHNSON & PATTON
1807 Ross Avenue
Sharyland Building
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 382-3041
Plaintiff-Appellee Vickie Forby, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated in Illinois, is represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, L.L.P.
1133 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
- and -
David Nelson, Esq.
NELSON & NELSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
420 N. High Street
Belleville, IL 62220
Telephone: (618) 277-4000
OPPENHEIMER & CO: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Ponzi Scheme Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that
on August 17, 2022, Judge Steven D. Grimberg of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a
motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging an investment
bank (the "Company"), certain of its advisors (the "Advisor
Defendants"), and certain of its external accountants (the
"Accounting Defendants") aided and abetted one of the Company's
former advisors (the "Individual Defendant") in facilitating an
alleged decade-long Ponzi scheme. 6694 Dawson Blvd, LLC v.
Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., et al., 1:21-cv-03625. (N.D. Geo. Aug. 17,
2022). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented or
concealed material facts that, had plaintiffs known, would have
caused them not to purchase allegedly "bogus" securities from the
Individual Defendant.
According to the complaint, plaintiffs are victims of an alleged
decade-long Ponzi scheme operated by the Individual Defendant, who
allegedly persuaded clients to invest in the securities at issue
from January 2003 to December 2016. Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company aided the Individual Defendant from sometime in 2008 to
December 31, 2016, after which the Company allegedly "took steps to
conceal the Ponzi scheme from the regulators and investing public
by permitting [the Individual Defendant] to quietly resign from the
Bank without reporting the wrongdoing to regulators and the
investing public." Plaintiffs also alleged that the Company aided
the Individual Defendant even after he left the Company by
concealing and misrepresenting on a FINRA form it filed for the
Individual Defendant upon his termination the fact that the
Individual Defendant had been accused of wrongdoing, on which
plaintiffs allegedly relied in purchasing securities, and by
failing to amend the form as the purported scheme continued.
Plaintiffs further alleged that the Advisor Defendants "violated a
host of securities laws" and "breached fiduciary duties owed to all
of their customers" by joining the sales team at the Individual
Defendant's new company after he left the Company. With respect to
the Accounting Defendants, plaintiffs alleged that they acted as
agents involved in perpetuating the purported Ponzi scheme by,
among other things, preparing fraudulent IRS forms. On August 20,
2021, the SEC brought a civil action against the Individual
Defendant and related entities not named in plaintiffs' lawsuit,
and plaintiffs filed their complaint just days later.
The Court began by addressing defendants' contention that the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA") bars the
Complaint because it asserts a state law class action based on
alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the sale
of a SLUSA-covered security. The Court agreed with defendants that
the securities at issue were "covered securities" under SLUSA,
rejecting plaintiffs' argument that defendants did not argue that
one of the securities at issue was not a covered security. The
Court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Chadbourne & Parke
LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. 377 (2014) -- the case relied on by
plaintiffs -- was different in that "the bank's misrepresentations
about its holdings in covered securities, which allegedly led its
customers to buy uncovered securities, did not trigger SLUSA's 'in
connection with' element," whereas defendants in this case "did not
dispute whether CDs were covered securities," but only whether the
security at issue was a "covered security under the meaning of
SLUSA." The Court found that defendants argued the security at
issue was a covered security in both the motion to dismiss and its
reply brief, and that the securities -- government stocks and bonds
-- were nonetheless covered securities under SLUSA as a matter of
law. Plaintiffs' fraud-based Georgia RICO and "conspiracy and/or
procurement of breach of fiduciary duty" claims were therefore
precluded under SLUSA.
The Court next turned to plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation
and "aiding and abetting fraud" claims, finding that they were also
precluded by SLUSA and that plaintiffs attempted to create a
private right of action where none exists. The Court noted that in
Cochran v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:19-CV-00564-JPB, 2020 WL
13328617, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2020), aff'd, 35 F.4th 1310
(11th Cir. 2022), "[t]he Eleventh Circuit instructed that, when
determining whether SLUSA applies, the 'focus is on the substance
of the complaint, and not on the artful way a plaintiff words his
allegations.'" Therefore, the Court concluded, it did not matter
that plaintiffs did not label the state law claims as fraud
"because the complaint's gravamen hung on a material
misrepresentation or omission in connection with a covered
security," and SLUSA precluded plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation and aiding and abetting claims. The Court also
dismissed plaintiffs' claim that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to follow FINRA rules requiring them to
investigate the Individual Defendant, noting that "however,
important as FINRA's [form] rule may be, there is no private right
of action arising out of a violation of this or any other FINRA
rule." The Court also cited multiple cases for the proposition that
"[c]ourts have consistently disallowed violations of FINRA and
other exchange rules to be pled as state common law causes of
action."
Moreover, the Court also dismissed plaintiffs' fraud-based claims
against the Advisor Defendants and the Accounting Defendants, and
all claims jointly implicating the Company and any other defendant,
noting that they arose entirely out of the same brand of fraudulent
conduct the Company allegedly engaged in, and thus warranted
dismissal under Cochran. Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiffs'
claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees, noting that they
were derivative in nature to plaintiffs' fraud-based claims, which
were precluded under SLUSA. The Court, however, granted plaintiffs'
leave to amend their complaint, noting that SLUSA did not prevent
them from repleading state law claims on an individual basis or new
federal securities claims either as an individual or as a class
representative. [GN]
ORANGE COAST TITLE: Bryan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange Coast Title
Company of Northern California, et al. The case is styled as Amber
Bryan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Orange Coast Title Company of Northern California, Orange Coast
Title Company, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00325522-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 22, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Orange Coast Title -- https://www.octitle.com/ -- is proud to bring
powerful tools to buyers, sellers, lenders and real estate
professionals..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Zev Abramson, Esq.
ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP ("ALG")
11846 Ventura Blvd.
Studio City, CA 91604
Phone: 213-493-6300
Fax: 213-382-4083
Email: wza@abramsonlabor.com
ORBIT ENERGY: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orbit Energy & Power,
LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Smith, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orbit Energy & Power,
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03381 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Orbit Energy & Power -- https://www.orbitenergy.us/ -- provides
professional Heating and Cooling services for your home or
commercial business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Silverstein, Esq.
LUNDY, BELDECOS & MILBY
450 N. Narberth Ave., Ste 200
Narberth, PA 19072
Phone: (610) 668-0019
Email: zsilverstein@lbmlaw.com
OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Vanderhart of lagrandeobserver.com reports that a suit claims
Oregon's child welfare system is in disarray and must better
protect youth under state care. Plaintiffs alleging widespread
dysfunction within Oregon's foster care system can now sue on
behalf of all children within that system, a judge has ruled. With
that decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, a
three-year-old lawsuit against the state can potentially achieve a
greater impact on a system that plaintiffs say struggles to place
children in adequate facilities, doesn't set kids up to live alone
once they age out of the system and frequently traumatizes
thousands of youth in state custody.
Aiken's ruling, over the objection of state attorneys, means that
the suit can proceed as a class action. Rather than merely seeking
remedies for 10 current or former foster children named in the
initial filing, the suit now represents a general class including
every child who is or eventually will be, in state care.
Aiken also certified three "subclasses" of that group: youth who
are aging out of the system, who are disabled, or who are LGBTQ.
Children in those categories have been subjected to unique harms,
the plaintiffs argue, and should be treated separately.
For each of those classes to be certified, the plaintiffs'
attorneys had to show that the claims made by the 10 named
defendants were likely to apply to a wide range of children in
foster care and that actions to remedy those harms would also help
the greater group.
"The Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown that the injuries
claimed by the named Plaintiffs are certain to recur on other
similarly situated individuals," Aiken wrote in her ruling.
The lawsuit was filed in 2019 by Disability Rights Oregon, the
nonprofit A Better Childhood and attorneys at the firm Davis Wright
Tremaine. Named as defendants are Gov. Kate Brown, Director of the
Oregon Department of Human Services Fariborz Pakseresht, Director
of Child Welfare Marilyn Jones and the Oregon Department of Human
Services.
The suit alleges that Oregon has failed children in its care for
years, employing too few caseworkers, identifying too few
facilities or homes where children may stay, providing inadequate
training for care providers, and not properly evaluating the needs
of foster kids, among other problems. The suit includes detailed
narratives of the 10 named defendants, offering a picture of a
system in which kids are separated from siblings, denied necessary
medications, frequently moved between homes and facilities, and
generally unable to access care specific to their needs.
"What we're seeking to do is make the system better and make it
better for kids," said Marcia Lowry, an attorney and executive
director of A Better Childhood.
"This case was filed in 2019 and kids are still suffering in
Oregon."
Lowry's organization has worked to improve foster care conditions
in more than a dozen states. She told OPB it has rarely encountered
as aggressive a defense as that by the state of Oregon.
"One of the things that's unfortunate here is that this is a
dysfunctional system, this is a harmful system, and the state has
been spending a huge amount of money to defend this," Lowry said.
Oregon has made some changes to its foster care system since the
lawsuit was first filed, such as a 2020 decision to bring back
youth who had been sent for care in other states. But foster youth
advocates say Oregon still has more work to do.
The Oregon Department of Justice declined to comment on the pending
litigation. The agency paid attorneys with law firm Markowitz
Herbold more than $11 million for representation in the case
through May, a spokeswoman said. [GN]
OUTSET MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Outset Medical, Inc.
(NASDAQ: OM), Missfresh Limited (NASDAQ: MF), Molecular Partners AG
(NASDAQ: MOLN), and TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: TGTX).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Outset Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: OM)
Class Period: September 15, 2020-June 13, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 6, 2022
Outset Medical is a medical technology company focused on kidney
dialysis, the primary treatment for acute and chronic kidney
failure. The Company's flagship product is the Tablo Hemodialysis
System ("Tablo"), a dialysis machine that purifies tap water and
then artificially purifies and removes toxins from the blood of
patients suffering from kidney failure.
The truth began to emerge on May 5, 2022, when the Company
announced disappointing results for the first quarter of 2022,
which analysts attributed, inter alia, to the untested nature of
Tablo in the home setting. In response to this disclosure, and as
the market digested this news, the price of Outset Medical common
stock declined more than 40% over the three trading days that
followed, from a closing price of $39.94 per share on May 4, 2022,
to a closing price of $23.06 per share on May 9, 2022.
Then, after the markets closed on June 13, 2022, Outset Medical
announced that the FDA had forced the Company to hold all shipments
of Tablo for use in the home until Tablo received proper regulatory
clearance. During an "FDA Review Call" held that day with analysts,
the Defendants acknowledged the "ship hold" had already been in
place for weeks before investors were provided this material
information, and that as a result of the shipment hold, the Company
was "suspending our prior full-year and long-term guidance." On
this news, the price of Outset Medical stock fell an additional
33%, from a closing price of $20.41 per share on June 13, 2022, to
a closing price of $13.46 per share on June 14, 2022.
Throughout the Class Period, Outset Medical touted that Tablo can
"serve as a dialysis clinic on wheels" that had been "cleared by
the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration [(the "FDA")] for use in
the hospital, clinic or home setting" under Section 510(k) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA"). Devices used by
non-professionals outside of a clinical setting and that can
present serious health consequences like Tablo are subject to
heightened scrutiny by the FDA, including post-market surveillance
studies pursuant to the FDCA. While performing further regulatory
studies during the Class Period, the Company assured investors that
it was conducting the studies "in accordance with the FDA approved
protocol," which required an appropriate demonstration of
"real-world" human testing given that the device would be used at
home by non-professionals.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) Defendants had
"continuously made improvements and updates to Tablo over time
since its original clearance" that required an additional 510(k)
application; (2) as a result, the Company could not conduct a human
factors study on a cleared device in accordance with FDA protocols;
(3) the Company's inability to conduct the human factors study
subjected the Company to the likelihood of the FDA imposing a
"shipment hold" and marketing suspension, leaving the Company
unable to sell Tablo for home use; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Outset Medical class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/OM
Missfresh Limited (NASDAQ: MF)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company's June 25, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 12, 2021
Missfresh purports to be an innovator and leader in China's
neighborhood retail industry which invented the Distributed Mini
Warehouse (DMW) model to operate an integrated online-and-offline
on-demand retail business focusing on offering fresh produce and
fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs).
On or about June 8, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC a
Registration Statement on Form F-1, which in combination with a
subsequent amendment on Form F-1/A and filed pursuant to Rule
424(b)(4), would be used for the IPO.
On June 23, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC its final prospectus
for the IPO on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of
the Registration Statement. In the IPO, Missfresh sold
approximately 21 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") at
$13.00 per ADS.
On April 29, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh filed with the
SEC a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 which announced,
among other things, that the independent Audit Committee of the
Company's board of directors, with the assistance of professional
advisors, "[wa]s in the process of conducting an internal review of
certain matters, including those relating to transactions between
the Company and certain third-party enterprises." On this news,
Missfresh ADSs fell 13% to close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2021.
Then, on May 24, 2022, Missfresh disclosed that the Company was
unable to file its 2021 Annual Report by the extended deadline,
"primarily because the Company is unable to complete the audit of
the financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2021". On this news, Missfresh's ADSs fell $0.018 per
share, or 9.7%, over the following two trading days, to close at
$0.167 per ADS on May 26, 2022.
Finally, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh issued a press release entitled
"Missfresh Announces the Substantial Completion of the Audit
Committee-Led Independent Internal Review" which disclosed, among
other things, that the Company's review "identified certain
transactions . . . that exhibit characteristics of questionable
transactions, such as undisclosed relationships between suppliers
and customers, different customers or suppliers sharing the same
contact information, and/or lack of supporting logistics
information" and that consequently, "certain revenue associated
with those reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately
recorded in the Company's financial statements."
Since the IPO, the price of Missfresh's ADSs has fallen over 97%,
closing at $0.3075 per ADS on July 6, 2022.
The class action alleges that Defendants' statements in the
Registration Statement were materially false and misleading when
made because: (1) Missfresh provided false financial figures in its
Registration Statement; (2) Missfresh would need to amend its
financial figures; (3) Missfresh, among other things, had lesser
net revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2021; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.
For more information on the Missfresh class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MF
Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ: MOLN)
Class Period: June 16, 2021-April 26, 2022 or pursuant to the
Company's June 16, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 12, 2022
Molecular Partners operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company that focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of therapeutic proteins. Leading up to and
following the IPO, the Company repeatedly touted the clinical and
commercial prospects of certain of its product candidates under
development in collaboration with other companies.
Among other product candidates, Molecular Partners is developing
ensovibep as a treatment for COVID-19 in collaboration with
Novartis AG ("Novartis"). One of the Company's most important
development strategies for ensovibep includes securing Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for ensovibep from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").
In addition, Molecular Partners is developing MP0310 (AMG 506) for
the treatment of certain types of cancer in collaboration with
Amgen Inc. ("Amgen"). The Company granted Amgen, among other
licenses, the right to progress MP0310's development program into
later stage development, including into combination trials,
following Phase 1 data.
On April 22, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a registration
statement on Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on June 15, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").
On June 16, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated
and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the
"Offering Documents").
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Molecular Partners conducted
the IPO, issuing 3 million of its ADSs to the public at the IPO
price $21.25 per ADS, for proceeds to the Company of over $59
million, after underwriting discounts and commissions, and before
expenses.
On November 16, 2021, Molecular Partners disclosed that "a planned
futility analysis of ensovibep in [an] ongoing [Phase 3] clinical
study . . . has not met the thresholds required to continue
enrollment of adults with COVID-19 in the hospitalized setting."
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $4.64 per ADS, or
31.37%, to close at $10.15 per ADS on November 16, 2021.
On April 26, 2022, months after applying for EUA from the FDA for
ensovibep, Novartis' Chief Executive Officer, Vas Narasimhan,
disclosed that "given the latest feedback . . . in our discussions
with the [FDA], we would expect the agency to require a Phase 3
study before granting an EUA approval or a general approval" for
ensovibep, and that "we need to make a kind of sober evaluation as
to is it a doable study in light of the waning rates of COVID
around the world[.]"
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $2.68 per ADS, or
16.17%, to close at $13.89 per ADS on April 26, 2022.
Then, also on April 26, 2022, during after-market hours, Molecular
Partners "announced that Amgen . . . has informed the Company of
their decision to return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular
Partners following a strategic pipeline review."
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $5.19 per ADS, or
37.37%, to close at $8.70 per ADS on April 27, 2022 -- a total
decline of $7.87 per ADS, or 47.5%, over two consecutive trading
days, and 59.06% below the $21.25 per ADS IPO price.
As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Molecular
Partners' ADSs continued to trade below the $21.25 per ADS IPO
price, damaging investors.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) ensovibep was less effective at treating COVID-19 than
Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, the FDA
was reasonably likely to require an additional Phase 3 study of
ensovibep before granting the drug EUA; (iii) waning global rates
of COVID-19 significantly reduced the Company's chances of securing
EUA for ensovibep; (iv) as a product candidate, MP0310 was less
attractive to Amgen than Defendants had led investors to believe;
(v) accordingly, there was a significant likelihood that Amgen
would return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular Partners; (vi) as
a result of all the foregoing, the clinical and commercial
prospects of ensovibep and MP0310 were overstated; and (vii) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
For more information on the Molecular Partners class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MOLN
TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: TGTX)
Class Period: January 15, 2020-May 31, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 16, 2022
TG Therapeutics, a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of
novel treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases.
The Company's therapeutic product candidates include Ublituximab,
an investigational glycoengineered monoclonal antibody for the
treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic
leukemia ("CLL"), and relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis; and
Umbralisib, or UKONIQ, an oral inhibitor of PI3K-delta and
CK1-epsilon for the treatment of CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and
follicular lymphoma.
In January 2020, TG Therapeutics initiated a rolling submission of
a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"), requesting accelerated approval of
Umbralisib as a treatment for patients with previously treated
marginal zone lymphoma ("MZL") and follicular lymphoma ("FL") (the
"Umbralisib MZL/FL NDA").
In December 2020, TG Therapeutics initiated a rolling submission of
a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the FDA for Ublituximab
in combination with Umbralisib (together, "U2"), as a treatment for
patients with CLL (the "U2 BLA").
In May 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a supplemental New Drug
Application ("sNDA") for Umbralisib to add an indication for CLL
and small lymphocytic lymphoma ("SLL") in combination with
Ublituximab (the "U2 sNDA").
In September 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a BLA to the FDA for
Ublituximab as a treatment for patients with relapsing forms of
multiple sclerosis ("RMS") (the "Ublituximab RMS BLA").
On November 30, 2021, TG Therapeutics issued a press release
"announc[ing] the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
notified the Company that it plans to host a meeting of the
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) in connection with its
review of the pending Biologics License Application
(BLA)/supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for the combination
of ublituximab and UKONIQ® (umbralisib) (combination referred to
as U2) for the treatment of adult patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)." TG
Therapeutics advised that "[t]he FDA has notified the Company that
potential questions and discussion topics for the ODAC include: the
benefit-risk of the U2 combination in the treatment of CLL or SLL,
and the benefit-risk of UKONIQ in relapsed/refractory marginal zone
lymphoma (MZL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). In addition, as part of
the benefit-risk analysis, the overall safety profile of the U2
regimen, including adverse events (serious and Grade 3-4),
discontinuations due to adverse events, and dose modifications, is
expected to be reviewed", stating that "[t]he FDA's concern giving
rise to the ODAC meeting appears to stem from an early analysis of
overall survival from the UNITY-CLL trial."
On this news, TG 'Therapeutics' stock price fell $8.16 per share,
or 34.93%, to close at $15.20 per share on November 30, 2021.
Then, on April 15, 2022, TG Therapeutics issued a press release
"announc[ing] that the Company has voluntarily withdrawn the
pending Biologics License Application (BLA)/supplemental New Drug
Application (sNDA) for the combination of ublituximab and
UKONIQ® (umbralisib) (combination referred to as U2) for the
treatment of adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)
and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)." The press release stated
that "[t]he decision to withdraw was based on recently updated
overall survival (OS) data from the UNITY-CLL Phase 3 trial that
showed an increasing imbalance in OS."
On this news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $1.93 per share, or
21.81%, to close at $6.92 per share on April 18, 2022.
Then, on May 31, 2022, TG Therapeutics issued a press release
announcing that the FDA extended the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
date for Ublituximab to December 28, 2022 "to allow time to review
a submission provided by the Company in response to an FDA
information request, which the FDA deemed a major amendment."
On this news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $0.75 per share, or
14.51%, to close at $4.42 per share on May 31, 2022.
Finally, on June 1, 2022, the FDA announced that, due to safety
concerns, it had withdrawn its approval for Umbralisib for the
treatment of MZL and FL. Specifically, the FDA provided that
"[u]pdated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to
show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving
[UKONIQ]. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with
[UKONIQ] outweigh its benefits."
On this news, TG 'Therapeutics' stock price fell $0.51 per share,
or 11.53%, to close at $3.91 per share on June 1, 2022.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) clinical trials revealed
significant concerns related to the benefit-risk ratio and overall
survival data of Ublituximab and Umbralisib; (ii) accordingly, it
was unlikely that the Company would be able to obtain FDA approval
of the Umbralisib MZL/FL NDA, the U2 BLA, the U2 sNDA, or the
Ublituximab RMS BLA in their current forms; (iii) as a result, the
Company had significantly overstated Ublituximab and Umbralisib's
clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) therefore, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
For more information on the TG Therapeutics class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TGTX
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Tel:(212) 355-4648 [GN]
PAM TRANSPORT: Agrees to Settle Wage Class Action for $4.75 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Carroll, writing for IHODL, reports that PAM Transport
Services Inc. of Tontitown has agreed to pay $4.75 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that it violated state and
federal minimum wage laws.
The suit, filed last year in federal court in Fayetteville, alleges
that the transportation company failed to compensate drivers for
the entirety of multi-day hauls. That includes hours when employees
weren't driving but were still required to look after trucks and
cargo, or had to sleep in the trucks.
PAM allegedly also charged fees for paycheck advances that were
higher than the 10% limit allowed by law, and it deducted wages
from driver paychecks until $500 was accumulated for an "escrow
account" to recoup such advances.
Under the agreement, PAM will be released from claims by about
7,965 drivers for any wage violations that occurred between Jan. 1,
2020 and July 31, 2022.
A brief filed earlier in August in support of the settlement says
that PAM has stopped charging service fees for wage advances and
ended its policies requiring drivers fund escrow accounts through
wage deductions.
U.S. Judge P. K. Holmes III still has to approve the settlement.
PAM settled a similar lawsuit for $16.5 million in 2020. [GN]
PANERA BREAD: Lee Sues Over Auto-Renewing Subscription
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Panera Bread Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-11958-TLL-PTM
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 20, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to
stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to its auto-renewing beverage subscription known as the
Unlimited Sip Club ("Subscription").
The Defendant introduced a coffee and tea subscription service for
$8.99 per month in 2020. In the spring of 2022, Defendant added
soda and lemonade to the service, so subscribers would get access
to all self-service beverages for $10.99 per month. Defendant
promotes this service as its "UNLIMITED SIP CLUB," promising
customers they can "enjoy endless NEW Charged Lemonades, coffees,
teas, and soda." However, the fine print reveals that the
"Unlimited" offer of "Any size. Any Time" means only "once every 2
hours. Plus, unlimited refills while you're in the café."
The Defendant entices customers to join its Unlimited Sip Club by a
one-month free trial. However, when customers avail themselves of
the free trial, they are immediately charged the monthly fee for
their first month. Even where a "free trial" would not result in an
immediate charge, tethering a free trial to enrollment in an
auto-renewing subscription is a deceptive practice. This is because
it is not "free" because the consumer cannot merely enjoy the
service for one month. They have to make sure they remember to
cancel it before the month expires, which imposes a burden on their
time and attention.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the service which are false and misleading. The value of
the Subscription that Plaintiff subscribed to was materially less
than its value as represented by Defendant. The Defendant sold more
of the Subscription and at higher prices than it would have in the
absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the
expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members
known the truth, they would not have subscribed to the Subscription
or would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and
misleading representations, the Subscription is sold at a premium
price, approximately no less than $10.99 per month, excluding tax
and sales, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff subscribed to and used the Subscription on one or
more occasions.
Panera operates over 2,000 bakery-cafe fast casual restaurants
across the United States, selling soups, sandwiches, breads, baked
goods and beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
PAPA INC: Andersen Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Pardo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Papa, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-06326-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the following
class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the FLSA:
"All individuals who worked for or work for Papa, Inc. as a
Papa Pal at any time from three years before the filing of
the initial complaint in this case through resolution of this
action."
The Plaintiff moves this Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certify the FLSA class for purposes of notice
and discovery;
2. approving that judicial notice be sent to all putative FLSA
collective action members by U.S. mail and email;
3. approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed
judicial notice, consent form, and reminder notice;
4. authorizing a day notice period for the putative plaintiffs
to join the case;
5. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's
counsel the contact information for each putative FLSA
collective action member in Excel format within ten days;
and
6. tolling the statute of limitations while this motion is
pending.
Papa, Inc. designs and develops software solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 8,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dZLl7y
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Zachary T. Gershman, Esq.
Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Zachary@lebelaw.com
Nicolas@lebelaw.com
PEMBER COMPANIES: Court Tosses O'Bryan's Bid for Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY O'BRYAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PEMBER COMPANIES,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00664-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James
D. Peterson entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff O'Bryan's motion for class certification
denied.
2. The Defendant Pember's motion for decertification is
granted.
3. O'Bryan may have until August 15, 2022, to inform the
court whether he wishes to join additional plaintiffs to
his bonus-pay claim.
The Court said,"Because O'Bryan has not shown that it would be
impracticable to join the members of his proposed bonus class, he
may wish to join other employees to his bonus-pay claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. But the August 19, 2022
deadline for summary judgment is fast approaching, and the court
would like to avoid disrupting the schedule. If O'Bryan wishes to
join additional plaintiffs to his bonus-pay claim, he should inform
the court as soon as possible, but no later than August 15, 2022.
Otherwise, the case will proceed solely on O'Bryan's individual
claims."
Mr. O'Bryan is a former employee of Pember Companies, a
construction and excavation company. O'Bryan contends that Pember
violated state and federal labor laws by failing to pay employees
for time spent traveling between Pember's shop and construction
sites and by not including bonus pay when it calculated its
employees' overtime rates.
O'Bryan seeks to represent a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action under state law. The court
previously approved the parties' stipulation for conditional
certification of O'Bryan's FLSA claims.
Pember is a Wisconsin company that provides construction, concrete,
and excavation services. The company operates out of its shop in
Menominee, Wisconsin. The shop is where Pember stores its tools,
vehicles, and equipment when they aren't being used on a job. It's
also where the company's supervisors, managers, and mechanics work.
The rest of Pember's employees perform most of their work in the
field at jobsites across Wisconsin and Minnesota.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QWCiDg at no extra charge.[CC]
PETE AND GERRY'S: Dean Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pete and Gerry's
Organics, LLC. The case is styled as Tamara Dean, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Pete and Gerry's
Organics, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-01361-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Aug. 2,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Pete & Gerry's Organic Eggs -- https://www.peteandgerrys.com/ -- is
a producer of organic, free-range, and pasture-raised eggs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Patrick Faherty, Esq.
TELFER FAHERTY & ANDERSON PLLC
815 S Washington Ave Ste 201
Titusville, FL 32780-8400
Phone: (321) 269-6833
Fax: (321) 383-9970
Email: cguntner@ctrfa.com
- and -
William Charles Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N. Flagler Drive Suite P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 514-0904
Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nathan R. Fennessy, Esq.
PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, CHARTERED, PLLP
P.O. Box 1318
Concord, NH 03302-1318
Phone: (603) 410-1528
Email: nfennessy@preti.com
POINTSBET USA: Gutman Files Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PointsBet USA Inc.
The case is styled as Eric Gutman, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PointsBet USA Inc., PointsBet New York
LLC, PointsBet Indiana, LLC, PointsBet Iowa LLC, PointsBet Michigan
LLC, PointsBet New Jersey LLC, PointsBet Colorado LLC, PointsBet
Illinois LLC, PointsBet West Virginia LLC, PointsBet Virginia LLC,
PointsBet Pennsylvania LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02137 (D. Colo., Aug.
19, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
PointsBet -- https://pointsbet.com/ -- offers the most markets on
all four major U.S. sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) and PointsBetting
in the world, including up to 1,000 markets per NBA game.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karl Stephen Kronenberger, Esq.
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108-4707
Phone: (415) 955-1155
Fax: (415) 955-1158
Email: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
PROCOLLECT INC: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProCollect Inc. The
case is styled as Ashondra J. Harris, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ProCollect Inc., John Does
1-10, Case No. 4:22-cv-00738-O (N.D. Tex, Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Procollect Inc. -- https://procollect.com/ -- is operating as a
debt collection company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Probe Over Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into PureCycle
Technologies, Inc. (NasdaqCM: PCT) f/k/a Roth CH Acquisition I Co.
(Nasdaq: ROCH).
On May 6, 2021, analyst Hindenburg Research reported a wide range
of criticisms toward the Company related to its prior "going
public" transaction, highlighting problems with its business model
and financial projections, among other things. For example, the
report noted that the Company "put its aggressive projections
through a bit of a torture session in order to justify its
valuation," that the numbers projected "would put PureCycle's
margins on par with some of the world's most profitable tech
companies," and concluded that the Company "represents the worst
qualities of the SPAC boom; another quintessential example of how
executives and SPAC sponsors enrich themselves while hoisting
unproven technology and ridiculous financial projections onto the
public markets, leaving retail investors to face the ultimate
consequences." Then, on November 10, 2021, the Company disclosed
the receipt of an investigative subpoena from the SEC on September
30, 2021 "requesting testimony in connection with a non-public,
fact finding investigation of the Company," pertaining to "among
other things, statements made in connection with [Purecycle's]
technology, financial projections, key supply agreements, and
management."
The Company and certain of its executives have been sued in a
securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period in violation
of federal securities laws, which remains ongoing.
KSF's investigation is focusing on whether PureCycle's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to its
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.
If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of PureCycle shares and would like
to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing
Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-pct/ to learn more.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.
Contacts Info:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
Tel: (877) 515-1850 [GN]
RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Allowed Leave to File Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD SOTELO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RAWLINGS SPORTING
GOODS COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-09166-GW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order granting the plaintiff's
application for leave to file under seal portions of plaintiff's
response to the defendant's draft tentative ruling on the
plaintiff's motion for class certification and certain exhibits.
Rawlings is an American sports equipment manufacturing company
based in Town and Country, Missouri. Founded in 1887, Rawlings
currently specializes in baseball clothing and equipment, producing
gloves, bats, balls, protective gear, batting helmets, uniforms,
bags.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AZ4Whz at no extra charge.[CC]
READY 2 DELIVER: Littlejohn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ready 2 Deliver
Logistics LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ja'Cent Littlejohn,
Rene Willis, on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ('PAGA') v. Ready 2
Deliver Logistics LLC, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00325622-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug.
23, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Ready 2 Deliver Logistics LLC is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Riverside, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE: Zirus Files Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Religious Practice
Committee, et al. The case is styled as Scott Zirus also known as:
Konchok Tingdzin Wangyal, Kenric Ledbetter, Isaac Cardenas, Santhy
Inthalangsy, David Martin also known as: Etsuzen, Miguel Bygoytia,
James Renfro, Justin Panus, Richard Cross, William Oliver,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Religious Practice Committee, Timothy Jones, TDCJ Director of
Chaplaincy; Thomas Brouwer, TDCJ Assistant Director of Chaplaincy;
C.F. Hazelwood, TDCJ Director of Religious Service; Christopher
Carter, TDCJ Director of Rehabilitation Program Division;
individually and in their official capacity, Case No. 4:22-cv-02858
(S.D. Tex., Aug. 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Religious Practice Committee -- https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/ -- is
part of the Rehabilitation Programs Division (RPD) serving as the
centralized administration and management of activities related to
inmate programs within TDCJ.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Liverpool Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santander Holdings
USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as The Liverpool Limited
Partnership, Elliott International L.P., and others similarly
situated v. Santander Holdings USA, Inc., Banco Santander, S.A.,
Edith E. Holiday, Homaira Akbari, Javier Maldonado, Juan Carlos
Alvarez de Soto, Leonard Coleman Jr., Mahesh Aditya, Robert J.
McCarthy, Stephen A. Ferriss, Victor Hill, William F. Muir, William
Rainer, Defendants; New Castle County, Sheriff; Case No.
2022-0689-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., Aug. 5, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. -- https://www.santanderus.com/ --
operates as a holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory V Varallo, Esq.
Phone: (212) 554-1408
Fax: (212) 554-1444
- and -
Glenn McGillivray, Esq.
Phone: (212) 554-1408
Fax: (212) 554-1444
- and -
Daniel Meyer, Esq.
Phone: (212) 554-1408
Fax: (212) 554-1444
SELECT REHABILITATION: Response Deadline for Class Cert Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, and
SELECT REHABILITATION INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D.
Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
a. setting a deadline for the Defendant to file response to
the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification by
October 17, 2022;
b. equitably tolling the statute of limitations for all the
Plaintiffs and potential opt-in plaintiffs from the date
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification
(04/13/2022) up until the final briefing is complete; and
c. staying written discovery between the parties until after
the final briefing is complete on the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Certification; and
d. staying depositions until the Court has ruled on the
motion for conditional certification.
Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive physical, occupational
and speech therapy services to patients in thousands of sites
across the country.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KnieXX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Leonard V. Feigel, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
One Independent Drive, Suite 1300
Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017
Telephone: (904) 359-2000
Facsimile: (904) 359-8700
E-mail: lfeigel@foley.com
- and -
David B. Goroff, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
321 North Clark Street, Ste. 3000
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 832-4500
Facsimile: (312) 832-4700
E-mail: dgoroff@foley.com
- and -
Diane G. Walker, Esq.
Kristen W. Roberts, Esq
WALKER MORTON LLP
Two Prudential Plaza
180 North Stetson Ave.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 471-2900
Facsimile: (312) 471-6001
E-mail: dwalker@walkermortonllp.com
kroberts@walkermortonllp.com
SHARKEY'S FRANCHISING: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sharkey's Franchising
Co., LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Sharkey's Franchising
Co., LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07214-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sharkey's Franchising Company --
https://www.sharkeysfranchisingcompany.com/ -- is the fastest
growing franchise of kids salons and family hair salons, designed
to cater to kids and families in all markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SHERLE WAGNER: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sherle Wagner
International, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sherle
Wagner International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04978 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sherle Wagner International, LLC -- https://www.sherlewagner.com/
-- is the world's finest door hardware, bathroom fixtures and home
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SILVER IN THE CITY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against .925-silver in the
City LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. .925-silver in the City LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07221 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Silver in the City -- https://www.silverinthecity.com/ -- is a
locally, woman-owned gift and silver jewelry store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SIMON'S AGENCY: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Huber Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON'S AGENCY INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying
its bid for reconsideration of a class certification ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled JAMIE HUBER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMON'S AGENCY, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:19-01424, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff Huber allegedly incurred four debts to creditor Crozer
Health Network. Crozer contracted with Defendant Simon's Agency,
Inc. ("SAI"), a collection agency specializing in medical billing,
to collect all four debts. SAI sent Huber collection letters and
contacted her about the debts via her cell phone.
Huber brings two putative class action claims against SAI for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq. She also brings two individual claims
against SAI for violations of the FDCPA and of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The Court
exercises federal question jurisdiction over all four claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 2, 2021, Judge
Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued
a Memorandum:
a. granting in part, denying in part, and denying as moot in
part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and
b. granting in part and denying as moot in part Huber's motion
for summary judgment.
On December 3, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class
certification that was filed on December 3, 2020.
On May 3, 2022, the Defendant filed with the Court a motion for
reconsideration of its class certification ruling but the Court
denied the request on June 2, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned as Jamie Huber v. Simons Agency
Inc., Case No. 22-2483, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on Aug. 12, 2022.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant SIMONS AGENCY INC. is represented by:
Jessica D. Reilly, Esq.
CLARK HILL
2001 Market Street
Two Commerce Square, Suite 2620
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 640-8500
- and -
David B. Shaver, Esq.
SURDYK DOWD & TURNER
8163 Old Yankee Street, Suite C
Dayton, OH 45458
Telephone: (937) 222-2333
Plaintiff-Appellee JAMIE HUBER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
SIMPSON LAW FIRM: Norwood Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simpson Law Firm PA,
et al. The case is styled as Shinrick Norwood, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Simpson Law Firm PA,
Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00493-HTW-LGI
(S.D. Miss., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Simpson Law Firm -- https://simpsonlawfirm.net/ -- specializes in
the representation of financial institutions and other creditors in
connection with bankruptcies, collections, possessory actions, and
defense litigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
SHEEHAN LAW FIRM, PLLC - Ocean Springs
429 Porter Avenue
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Phone: (228) 875-0572
Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com
SIT DOWN NEW YORK: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sit Down New York,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Sit Down New York, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04980 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sit Down New York -- https://www.sitdownny.com/ -- is a retailer of
mid-century and modern furniture, lighting, and decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Utilize Opinions
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. JOSEPH CICCIO, et al.,
v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.
Tenn), the Provider Plaintiffs seek leave to utilize the rebuttal
opinions of their class certification experts in support of their
forthcoming for class certification.
This Court's Second Amended Scheduling Order provides staggered
deadlines for the disclosure of initial class certification experts
and reports, with the Plaintiffs disclosing first and Defendants
second:
1. DISCLOSURE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION EXPERTS. Provider
Plaintiffs shall identify and disclose all expert witnesses
and expert reports on or before Friday, May 20, 2022.
The Defendants shall identify and disclose all expert
witnesses and reports on or before Monday, June 27, 2022.
The Scheduling Order is silent as to rebuttal experts and
reports. In compliance with the Scheduling Order, on May
20, 2022, Plaintiffs disclosed their experts -- Jonathan D.
Hibbard, Ph.D., and Russell W. Mangum III, Ph.D. -- and
provided their experts' original reports to Defendants.
Then, on June 27, 2022, the Defendants disclosed their
experts -- Jonah Berger, Ph.D., and Lorin M. Hitt -- and
expert reports.
SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R39pF0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin Adams, Esq.
Edward M. Yarbrough, Esq.
W. Justin Adams, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
511 Union Street, Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 238-6300
Facsimile: (615) 238-6301
E-mail: eyarbrough@spencerfane.com
wjadams@spencerfane.com
- and -
Robert K. Spotswood, Esq.
Michael T. Sansbury, Esq.
Morgan Franz, Esq.
SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC
Financial Center
505 20 th Street North, Suite 700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 986-3620
Facsimile: (205) 986-3639
E-mail: rks@spotswoodllc.com
msansbury@spotswoodllc.com
jpayne@spotswoodllc.com
mfranz@spotswoodllc.com
- and -
Richard Stone, Esq.
RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC
11 East 44th St., Suite 1900
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 561-804-9569
E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John R. Jacobson, Esq.
Elizabeth O. Gonser, Esq.
RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC
1906 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
E-mail: jjacobson@rwjplc.com
egonser@rwjplc.com
- and -
David Rammelt, Esq.
Nicholas J. Secco, Esq.
Emily N. Dillingham, Esq.
Carl M. Johnson, Esq.
Hannah Stowe, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER,
COPLAN AND ARONOFF, LLP
71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: drammelt@beneschlaw.com
nsecco@beneschlaw.com
edillingham@beneschlaw.com
cmjohnson@beneschlaw.com
hstowe@beneschlaw.com
- and -
Michael D. Meuti, Esq.
Andrew G. Fiorella, Esq.
Mark K. Norris, Esq.
James R. Bedell, Esq.
Michael B. Silverstein, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER,
COPLAN AND ARONOFF, LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 2300
E-mail: Cleveland, OH 44114
mmeuti@beneschlaw.com
afiorella@beneschlaw.com
mnorris@beneschlaw.com
jbedell@beneschlaw.com
msilverstein@beneschlaw.com
SOCLEAN INC: Thompson Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Saundra Thompson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SoClean Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04405
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Aug. 22, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01210-JFC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Email: ecf@shublawyers.com
SOLANA LABS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of people who purchased securities from Solana
Labs, Inc. and Celsius Network LLC, and the companies' respective
Co-Defendants. Those who purchased securities have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.
Solana Labs, Inc. and Co-Defendants
Class Period: March 24, 2020-Present
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 6, 2022
According to the lawsuit, Solana issues securities that are
required to be, but are not, registered with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
promoted SOL securities (SOL tokens) and sold them to investors,
who has suffered losses from purchasing SOL securities.
For more information on the Solana Labs class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SOL-TOKENS
Celsius Network LLC and Co-Defendants
Class Period: February 9, 2018-July 13, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2022
Celsius is a financial services company that generates revenue
through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, the sale of
its unregistered securities, as well as engaging in proprietary
trading.
The price of CEL Tokens went from a high of $7.73 on June 3, 2021,
to a low of $0.28 just over a year later on June 12, 2021, in the
wake of the June Crisis and Celsius freezing its investors
accounts.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by carrying out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct
that Celsius intended to and did deceive retail investors and
thereby caused them to purchase Celsius Financial Products at
artificially inflated prices; endorsed false statements they knew
or recklessly should have known were materially misleading, and
made untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading.
The complaint further alleges that Celsius and its affiliates,
along with the Individual Defendants, also violated provisions of
the Securities Act by selling non-exempt securities without
registering it. The complaint alleges that Celsius and Individual
Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by also
participating in Celsius' failure to register the Celsius Financial
Products. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated
provisions of the New Jersey Common Law by possessing the monetary
value of Celsius Financial Products of inflated value which
rightfully belongs to the Plaintiff and members of the Class.
For more information on the Celsius Network class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CELSIUS
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Tel: (212) 355-4648 [GN]
TAVISTOCK GENDER: Faces Suit Over Trans-Affirmative Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johann R. Porter of ifamnews.com reports that the Tavistock Gender
Clinic in London is facing a wave of lawsuits from more than 1,000
families whose children received cross-sex hormones and puberty
blockers as part of a trans-affirmative treatment approach.
The Tavistock clinic has come under criticism in the wake of an
independent investigation. The study report criticized the lack of
safe and valid data on the effectiveness and safety of prescribing
hormones to gender-dysphoric adolescents. Some doctors have
expressed feeling "pressured" to give children hormones.
Tom Goodhead, an attorney with the international law firm Pogust
Goodhead, who will represent the families, criticized the clinic
for fast-tracking teens, misdiagnosing and mishandling them: "These
children have suffered life-altering and, in some cases,
irreversible effects of treatment that has resulted in long-term
physical and psychological consequences for them. We must not
stifle the debate for fear of discussing gender identity, and those
responsible must be held accountable."
In an attempt to defend itself, the Tavistock clinic stated that
each person was treated individually "without making assumptions
about which path was right for them, and that only a minority of
the young people who present take up any of the physical treatments
during their stay with us."
The law firm is considering suing not only the Tavistock Clinic,
but also the national health care provider NHS, which commissioned
the clinic. [GN]
TENEOLOGY INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teneology, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Teneology, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07084
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Teneology, Inc. doing business as Fexy Media -- http://fexy.com/--
is the gold standard for online food journalism.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
TEXAS: Faces $27-Bil. Civil Rights Suit Over School Mass Shooting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Waldman of ksat.com reports that some of the families
affected by the Robb Elementary School mass shooting are now a part
of a major lawsuit. The class action lawsuit, which was announced
on August 21, is going after several law enforcement agencies as
well as the manufacturer of the gun used in the massacre.
"What we intend to do (is) to help serve this community, and that
is to file a $27 billion civil rights lawsuit under our United
States Constitution, one-of-a-kind in the whole world," attorney
Charles Bonner of Bonner & Bonner Law said.
The civil rights attorney intends to file a class action lawsuit
against anyone who can be held responsible for what happened inside
Robb Elementary on May 24.
"We have the school police, OK, Arredondo, we have the city police,
and we have the sheriffs and we have the Texas Rangers, the DPS and
we have the Border Patrol," Bonner said.
The defendants also include gun manufacturer Daniel Defense and
Oasis Outback, where the gunman bought the weapon used in the
shooting.
"There will be some institutional defendants as well, such as
school board or such as City Council or such as the City of the
Uvalde," Bonner said.
"There will be some institutional defendants as well, such as
school board or such as City Council or such as the City of the
Uvalde," Bonner said.
Bonner and his associate have been traveling to Uvalde from their
California office for weeks, meeting with families at Pastor
Daniel Myers' church, Tabernacle of Worship.
"Up to right now, there's been no accountability, there's no
justice for those 19 children and the two teachers," Myers said.
The suit is being filed on constitutionality, as Bonner said the
victims, survivors, and their families had their 14th Amendment
rights violated.
"People have a right to life under the 14th Amendment and what
we've seen here is that the law enforcement agencies have shown a
deliberate conscious disregard of the life," Bonner said.
Bonner's law firm is taking on this class action lawsuit with a
team of other firms, including a local Uvalde law office and
Everytown, a gun safety organization. He said it's a big
undertaking, one he believes is necessary to save lives.
"Everyone in this world are hurting and bleeding about what is
happening here in Uvalde. And it's up to us to make sure it doesn't
happen again," Bonner said.
The lawsuit will be filed in September when the Department of
Justice is done with its investigation into the shooting, he said.
[GN]
TG THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TGTX) between January 15, 2020 and May 31, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 16,
2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
If you purchased TG Therapeutics securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the TG Therapeutics class action, go
to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7662 or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than September 16, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
Investors are encouraged to select qualified counsel with a track
record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices
do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer
recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities
class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or
partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise
in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) clinical trials revealed
significant concerns related to the benefit-risk ratio and overall
survival data of Ublituximab (an investigational glycoengineered
monoclonal antibody for the treatment of B-cell non-hodgkin
lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia ("CLL"), and relapsing forms
of multiple sclerosis) and Umbralisib (or UKONIQ, an oral inhibitor
of PI3K-delta and CK1-epsilon for the treatment of CLL, marginal
zone lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma); (2) accordingly, it was
unlikely that TG Therapeutics would be able to obtain U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of the marginal zone lymphoma
("MZL") and follicular lymphoma ("FL") (the "Umbralisib MZL/FL
NDA"), the rolling submission of a Biologics License Application
("BLA") to the FDA for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib
(together, "U2"), as a treatment for patients with CLL (the "U2
BLA"), the supplemental New Drug Application ("sNDA") for
Umbralisib to add an indication for CLL and small lymphocytic
lymphoma ("SLL") in combination with Ublituximab (the "U2 sNDA"),
or the Ublituximab as a treatment for patients with relapsing forms
of multiple sclerosis ("RMS") (the "Ublituximab RMS BLA") in their
current forms; (3) as a result, TG Therapeutics had significantly
overstated Ublituximab and Umbralisib's clinical and/or commercial
prospects; and (4) therefore, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
THREE WISHES: Harville Sues Over Deceptive Practices in Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Harville, an individual, on behalf of herself, the general
public, and those similarly situated v. THREE WISHES FOODS, INC.,
Case No. 5:22-cv-04774-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2022), is brought to
seek redress for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling
and marketing the Three Wishes brand cereals which make protein
claims on the front of the product packages and are unlawfully
fortified.
Because consumers are generally unaware about the usability of
various proteins, and may even be unaware of the total amount of
usable protein they should ingest each day, the FDA prohibits
manufacturers from advertising or promoting their products with a
protein claim unless they have satisfied two requirements. First,
the manufacturer must calculate the "corrected amount of protein
per serving" based on the quality of the product's protein using
the PDCAAS method. Second, the manufacturer must use the PDCAAS
computation to provide "a statement of the corrected amount of
protein per serving" in the nutrition facts panel ("NFP")
"expressed as" a percent daily value ("%DV") and placed immediately
adjacent to the statement of protein quantity.
The primary protein sources in the Defendant's products are
chickpea protein, pea protein, and tapioca (which is extracted from
cassava). The PDCAAS scores for these proteins are as follows: (i)
chickpea – 0.75; (ii) pea – .82; and (iii) tapioca – 0.57,
which means Defendant's products will provide nutritionally as
little as approximately half of the protein quantity claimed.
Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to provide in the NFP a
statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving calculated
according to the PDCAAS methodology and expressed as a %DV.
Accordingly, the protein claims on the front of the package, such
as "8g protein per serving" are unlawful in violation of parallel
state and federal laws because Defendant did not comply with the
regulatory requirements for making a protein claim.
Additionally, the Defendant's protein claim is also misleading
because it is stated in the form of a quantitative amount appearing
alone, without any information about protein quality. FDA
regulations prohibit a manufacturer from stating "the amount or
percentage of a nutrient" on the front label if it is "false or
misleading in any respect." The Defendant fails to disclose to
consumers that the protein sources in the Three Wishes cereal are
low quality and only provide approximately half the protein claimed
on the label. This is misleading. The Defendant's unlawful and
misleading protein claims caused Plaintiff and members of the class
to pay a price premium for the Three Wishes cereals, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Three Wishes cereal in Unsweetened and
Cocoa flavors from a Whole Foods retail store and online at
Amazon.com.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and
sells cereals in a variety of flavors under the brand name "Three
Wishes."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
TIKTOK INC: $92-M Deal in BIPA Suit Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Chicago reports that a federal judge in Illinois has granted
final approval for a $92 million class-action lawsuit settlement
between the social media network TikTok and users of the platform,
with Illinois residents set to receive the largest share of the
payout.
According to a press release, the lawsuit was filed over claims
that the video-sharing app violated both federal law and Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act, with the site allegedly
collecting biometric data from users and then disclosing it to
third-party companies without the consent of those affected.
"In this class action suit, we alleged that TikTok's technological
sophistication enabled them to collect billions of user attributes,
ranging from eye color to people's facial expressions and physical
gestures and use that data without disclosure to the consumers,"
Elizabeth Fegan, co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs, said
in a statement.
The settlement will create a $92 million fund to be distributed
among class members. Here's what we know about the settlement
payments.
Who is Eligible for Payments?
According to lawyers, TikTok users who created videos prior to
Sept. 30, 2021 were eligible to be part of the class-action suit.
Two separate classes of plaintiffs were created, with one comprised
of nationwide users and a second class comprised solely of
Illinois-based users.
Can I Still Join the Class-Action Suit?
Deadlines for the lawsuit have already passed, according to
lawyers. Individuals who wanted to file a claim form to be part of
the class-action suit were required to do so by March 1, 2022.
Individuals who sought to exclude themselves from the suit were
required to make that known by Jan. 31.
How Will Payments be Distributed?
According to the law firm that filed the suit, those individuals
who filed to be part of the class-action suit will receive payments
electronically, unless they opted for an alternative form of
payment.
No official date for payments has yet been announced.
Why Are Illinois Residents in a Separate Class?
The reason Illinois residents were part of a separate class in the
suit is because of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
which imposes strict limits on the way companies can use and share
biometric information.
As a result of that law, Illinois residents who are part of the
class-action suit will receive the same share as other United
States residents, but will also receive five additional shares
apiece, effectively increasing their payout.
The official number of participants in the class-action suit has
not yet been announced, and therefore it is not known how big a
settlement payout Illinois residents can expect. [GN]
TIKTOK INC: Ill. Residents to Get Largest Shares in $92M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5Chicago reports that eligible Illinois residents are set to
receive the largest shares in a $92 million class-action lawsuit
settlement involving the social media network TikTok.
The settlement was approved by a federal judge, with Illinois
residents who are part of the suit receiving five additional shares
each under the payout. That's compared to individual shares for
others users in the U.S.
According to a press release, the lawsuit was filed over claims
that the video-sharing app violated both federal law and Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act, with the site allegedly
collecting biometric data from users and then disclosing it to
third-party companies without the consent of those affected.
"In this class action suit, we alleged that TikTok's technological
sophistication enabled them to collect billions of user attributes,
ranging from eye color to people's facial expressions and physical
gestures and use that data without disclosure to the consumers,"
Elizabeth Fegan, co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs, said
in a statement.
The settlement will create a $92 million fund to be distributed
among class members.
According to lawyers, TikTok users who created videos prior to
Sept. 30, 2021 were eligible to be part of the class-action suit.
Two separate classes of plaintiffs were created, with one comprised
of nationwide users and a second class comprised solely of
Illinois-based users.
Deadlines for the lawsuit have already passed, according to
lawyers, meaning those who are eligible had to file their claims by
March 1, 2022.
According to the law firm that filed the suit, those individuals
who filed to be part of the class-action suit will receive payments
electronically, unless they opted for an alternative form of
payment.
No official date for payments has yet been announced.
The reason Illinois residents were part of a separate class in the
suit is because of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
which imposes strict limits on the way companies can use and share
biometric information.
As a result of that law, Illinois residents who are part of the
class-action suit will receive the same share as other United
States residents, but will also receive five additional shares
apiece, effectively increasing their payout.
The official number of participants in the class-action suit has
not yet been announced, and therefore it is not known how big a
settlement payout Illinois residents can expect. [GN]
TIOGA DOWNS RACETRACK: Potter Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tioga Downs
Racetrack, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Potter, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Tioga Downs
Racetrack, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00869-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 23,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Tioga Downs Racetrack, LLC -- https://www.tiogadowns.com/ operates
as a casino hotel. The Company offers gaming, accommodation,
dining, racing, event places, and golf club facilities, as well as
other entertainment services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON
3959 N. Buffalo Road-Suite 29
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Phone: (716) 242-1234
Email: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com
TRANSUNION LLC: Kilpatrick Townsend Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Bogan III, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that the law firm has posted articles
addressing the U.S. Supreme Court's standing-related decision in
Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019) (see SCOTUS punts in cy
pres-only class settlement case, remanding on Spokeo standing issue
(March 29, 2019)), as well as its decision in TransUnion, LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (see SCOTUS standing ruling -- "No
concrete harm, no standing" -- sidesteps class action issues and
could limit federal subject matter jurisdiction over class actions
(June 30, 2021)). In a recent opinion dealing with a complicated
class settlement of claims alleged under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Eleventh Circuit panel in Drazen v. Pinto, 41
F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2022), analyzed Gaos and TransUnion and held
that whenever a district court approves a class action settlement,
it must ensure that every class member within the defined
settlement class has Article III standing. Because the district
court for the Southern District of Alabama misconstrued the law and
approved a settlement class that -- according to Eleventh Circuit
precedent -- included uninjured class members, the panel vacated
the class settlement and remanded the action so the parties and the
district court could redefine the settlement class definition to
include only injured class members.
The panel started "with the basic question of whether we have
subject-matter jurisdiction in this case." Id. at 1359. After
analyzing the Supreme Court's decision in Gaos, the panel concluded
that "even at the settlement stage of a class action, we must
assure ourselves that we have Article III standing at every stage
of the litigation. . . . That requirement is derived from Article
III as well as the unique nature of class action settlements as
laid out in Rule 23(e), which require court approval." Id. at
1360.
Then, after analyzing the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion,
the panel described the "two key takeaways from TransUnion" as: "1)
To satisfy the concrete injury requirement for standing, a
plaintiff alleging a statutory violation must demonstrate that
history and the judgment of Congress support a conclusion that
there is Article III standing; 2) 'Every class member must have
Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.'" Id.
(quoting TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2204–5).
The panel then analyzed prior Eleventh Circuit precedent through
the lens of TransUnion, concluding: "when a class seeks
certification for the sole purpose of a damages settlement under
Rule 23(e), the class definition must be limited to those
individuals who have Article III standing. If every plaintiff
within the class definition in the class action in TransUnion had
to have Article III standing to recover damages after trial,
logically so too must be the case with a court-approved class
action settlement." Id. at 1361.
Having articulated the governing legal framework, the panel then
turned to Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162, 1172 (11th Cir. 2019).
There, the Eleventh Circuit held "that a plaintiff has not suffered
a concrete injury for Article III standing purposes when she has
received a single unwanted text message." Drazen, 41 F.4th at
1362.
Applying Salcedo, the Darden court rejected the class definition
underpinning the class settlement approved by the district court
because the definition included class members who did not have
standing, i.e., class members who had "received a single unwanted
text message." Id. Accordingly, the panel "vacate[d] the class
certification and settlement and remand[ed] in order to give the
parties an opportunity to redefine the class with the benefit of
TransUnion and its common-law analogue analysis." Id. at 1363. [GN]
TRIPLE J. BEDDING: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triple J. Bedding,
LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Triple J. Bedding, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-04979 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Triple J. Bedding is a bedding store in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
TSCHETTER SULZER: Franklin Files FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tschetter Sulzer,
P.C. The case is styled as Tina Franklin, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Tschetter Sulzer, P.C.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01963-RMR-SKC (D. Colo., Aug. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Tschetter Sulzer, P.C. -- https://www.thslawfirm.com/ -- are a
full-service real estate law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Michael Legg, Esq.
CADIZ LAW, LLC
501 South Cherry Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80246
Phone: (720) 330-2800
Email: jason@cadizlawfirm.com
TTEC SERVICES: Nears Settlement of 2021 Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that TTEC
Services Corp. will settle consolidated litigation over a 2021 data
breach, according to a new filing in federal court in Colorado that
says the parties have reached a deal in principle that will resolve
all class-wide claims.
Five plaintiffs sued the customer experience technology and
services company in January on behalf of a proposed class of
current and former TTEC employees and other individuals. They
accused the company of acting negligently and violating state
consumer protection laws by failing to guard sensitive data --
including Social Security numbers, healthcare IDs, clinical
diagnoses, names, and birthdays—from a data breach. [GN]
TWITTER INC: Sued in Calif. for Using Users' Data Without Consent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Queenie Wong, writing for CNET, reports that Twitter is facing more
legal woes for allegedly providing advertisers user phone numbers
and email addresses without their consent. In 2019, the company
disclosed that personal information users handed over for a
security feature may have been used for targeted advertising.
On Aug. 18, two Twitter users sued the social media company in a
proposed class action lawsuit filed in a federal court in Northern
California. In the 38-page complaint, Texas resident Christina
McClellan and California resident Billy Moses say they wouldn't
have provided Twitter personal information such as their phone
numbers and email addresses if they knew the company was going to
use this data for targeted advertising.
The lawsuit is the latest consequence Twitter is dealing with over
alleged privacy violations. In May, Twitter agreed to pay a $150
million penalty for allegedly violating the Federal Trade
Commission Act and a 2011 order by the FTC by misrepresenting how
it would use nonpublic user contact information. Twitter users in
other states such as Washington have also sued the tech platform
for violating their privacy.
Twitter encouraged users to provide their phone numbers and email
addresses for an extra layer of security known as two-factor
authentication but didn't inform them that data could be used for
targeted advertising.
"As a result of Twitter's deceptive practices, consumers
surrendered valuable personal information that they expected to
remain private and to be used only for security purposes," the
lawsuit states. "Consequently, consumers were deprived of the
ability to control how this information is used and who possesses
it."
The lawsuit alleges Twitter profited from this data without user
consent because advertisers could use emails and phone numbers to
figure out a potential customer's identity and learn about where
they live, what products they purchase, where they shop and other
valuable information.
"The more intimate and private details that Twitter can collect or
induce its users to provide, the more revenue it derives," the
lawsuit says.
There are other risks that come with providing phone numbers and
email addresses because they can be used to identify a person.
Hackers, the lawsuit notes, can use an email to try to access a
user's social media accounts or collect other information for
identity theft.
The lawsuit also alleges the company violated California's Unfair
Competition Law and its contract with users. Twitter's privacy
policy at the time said it doesn't share information such as email
addresses and phone numbers with its partners but the data it
provides could be linked to other data if a user provides consent
to that partner.
As part of the lawsuit, Twitter users are demanding a jury trial
and that the company take other actions such as disclosing to users
whether and how their personal information was used.
Twitter said it didn't have a comment about the lawsuit. The
company's legal troubles have been mounting after billionaire Elon
Musk tried to back out of buying the social media platform for $44
billion. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Reminds of Oct. 17 Lead Plaintiff Due
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber" or the
"Company") (NYSE: UBER) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 22-cv-04688, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Uber common stock
between May 31, 2019 and July 8, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Uber
common stock during the Class Period, you have until October 17,
2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Uber develops and operates proprietary technology applications in
the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The Company connects consumers with
providers of ride services, and connects riders and other consumers
with restaurants, grocers, and other stores with delivery service
providers for meal preparation, grocery, and other delivery
services.
Uber has long been plagued by scandal. As the Company's Senior Vice
President of Marketing and Public Affairs recently stated: "There
has been no shortage of reporting on Uber's mistakes prior to 2017.
Thousands of stories have been published, multiple books have been
written—there's even been a TV series." These "mistakes" ranged
from allegations of Uber executives knowingly concealing incidents
of violence and sexual assault by its drivers, operating illegally
in various jurisdictions, and utilizing software to evade
authorities and block their access to the Company's databases.
Following years of negative publicity, Uber made changes to its top
management, purportedly reformed its corporate culture, and touted
itself as a new company that had atoned for its prior compliance
and cultural issues. However, unbeknownst to investors, the Company
and its top management had still not transparently divulged and
accounted for the full scope of the Company's prior misconduct.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding Uber's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Uber had defective disclosure controls and
procedures; (ii) Uber concealed and/or downplayed the full scope
and severity of its prior misconduct, including, inter alia, the
extent to which it secretly lobbied government officials and
politicians to bypass legal and regulatory requirements, as well as
knowingly risked the safety of Uber drivers, to fuel the Company's
global growth; (iii) as a result, Uber's present global footprint
and market share is in significant part the byproduct of previously
undisclosed, unsustainable, and illegal business practices; (iv)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact
Uber's reputation, as well as subject the Company to a heightened
risk of governmental and regulatory scrutiny and enforcement
action; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On Sunday, July 10, 2022, news reports emerged regarding a cache of
124,000 internal Uber records, dubbed the "Uber Files" by media
outlets, spanning from 2013 to 2017, that were leaked to The
Guardian and subsequently shared with the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists and other news outlets. These files
revealed, among other things, how Uber secretly met with various
government officials and politicians to skirt laws and regulations
around the world, as well as risked Uber drivers' safety, to
advance the Company's growth, and how all the foregoing conduct was
known to, and in fact encouraged by, the Company's top management.
On this news, Uber's stock price fell $1.15 per share, or 5.15%, to
close at $21.19 per share on July 11, 2022.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: RM LAW Reminds of Oct. 17 Lead Plaintiff Due
---------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. on Aug. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Uber
Technologies, Inc. ("Uber" or the "Company") (NYSE: UBER)
securities during the period from May 31, 2019 through July 8, 2022
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Uber shareholders may, no later than October 17, 2022, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of Uber and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Uber had defective disclosure controls and procedures;
(ii) Uber concealed and/or downplayed the full scope and severity
of its prior misconduct, including, inter alia, the extent to which
it secretly lobbied government officials and politicians to bypass
legal and regulatory requirements, as well as knowingly risked the
safety of Uber drivers, to fuel the Company's global growth; (iii)
as a result, Uber's present global footprint and market share is in
significant part the byproduct of previously undisclosed,
unsustainable, and illegal business practices; (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Uber's
reputation, as well as subject the Company to a heightened risk of
governmental and regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action; and
(v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 10, 2022, news reports announced the discovery of 124,000
internal Uber records spanning from 2013 – 2017, which were
leaked to The Guardian and shared with the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists and other news outlets. These files
revealed, among other things, how Uber secretly met with various
government officials and politicians to skirt laws and regulations
around the world, as well as risked Uber drivers' safety, to
advance the Company's growth, and how all the foregoing conduct was
known to, and in fact encouraged by, the Company's top management.
On this news, Company's stock price fell $1.15 per share or over
5%, to close at $21.19 per share on July 11, 2022.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
October 17, 2022, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of
other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class
members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW,
P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.
For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about
class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.
please visit our website by clicking here.
RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.
CONTACT: RM LAW, P.C.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
484-324-6800
844-291-9299
rm@maniskas.com [GN]
UNITED COLLECTION: Jorgen Sues Over Unauthorized Recordings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jorgen, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-01219-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2022), is brought for
damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant and its
present, former, or future direct and indirect parent companies,
subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, related entities for unauthorized
recordings of conversations with the Plaintiff without any
notification or warning to the Plaintiff on violation of the Cal.
Pen. Code. Section 630 ("CIPA").
Prior to September of 2021, the Plaintiff allegedly became
delinquent on debt, and the debt was acquired by the Defendant and
began calling the Plaintiff to collect The Defendant records all
its collection calls. The Defendant does not advise that the calls
are recorded at the beginning of outbound calls. When placing a
call, the first thing the Defendant should say is that the call is
recorded. At no time during the call did the Defendant advised the
Plaintiff that it was recording the call. The Defendant violated
the Plaintiff's constitutionally protected privacy rights by
failing to advise or otherwise provide notice at the beginning of
the conversation with the Plaintiff that the calls would be
recorded and the Defendant did not try to obtain the Plaintiff's
consent before such recording, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of the state of
California, County of San Diego.
The Defendant describes itself as a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Spencer L. Pfeiff, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 866-219-3343
Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
juliana@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 222-7429
Fax: (866) 431-3292
Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File 4th Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.F.O.P., E.C.C., and
J.C.C., et al., Individually and as Representatives of a Similarly
Situated Class, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his capacity as Secretary
of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her
capacity as Director of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Case No. 4:21-cv-11556-TSH (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to file and serve a fourth amended
complaint to join five new named plaintiffs -- PAIR Project,
F.A.N., 1 R.P.M., D.F.M., and P.S.C.
This class action raises the legal issue whether noncitizens who
have Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status under the Immigration
and Naturalization Act, and who hold an approved I-360 document
that allows them to apply for lawful permanent residence status
(green card), are eligible to be granted an employment
authorization document (EAD) under 8 C.F.R. section
274a.12(c)(11)—or (c)(11) for short -- and the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
The Plaintiffs have moved to proceed pseudonymously. On February 8,
2022, the four original named plaintiffs accepted the Defendants'
settlement proposal, which ultimately led to their receiving EADs.
The settlement contained language about adding new named plaintiffs
to avoid any question of mootness: "To avoid any question about
whether the above agreement would moot this case, Plaintiffs'
counsel has advised Defendants' counsel that Plaintiffs intend to
seek court approval to amend the complaint to join additional
plaintiffs who are not included within the scope of the above
agreement, but whose claims are like those of the currently named
plaintiffs."
At the end of March 2022, with Defendants' consent, Plaintiffs
filed a third amended complaint adding five new named plaintiffs
who sought, but did not have, EADs: M.U.Z., A.J.L.N., M.M.S.S.,
A.P., and G.M. The Defendants' new DA-to-EAD policy for SIJs took
effect in early May. By May 11, 2022, all four original named
plaintiffs had received their Deferred Action-based (c)(14) EADs
under the settlement Defendants had made with them.
By the second week of June, four of the five newly added plaintiffs
had received their (c)(14) category EADs under the Defendants' new
DA-to-EAD policy. The fifth new plaintiff did not receive an EAD
under the new policy because of missing paperwork. Had missing
paperwork not been an issue, Defendants would have had discretion
to grant the fifth new plaintiff an EAD under the new policy but
would not have necessarily done so.
About 10 days later, the Defendants filed a Notice of Factual
Development stating that all nine named plaintiffs had received DA
status and that eight had received EADs. In the class certification
hearing the next day, Defendants argued mootness based on that
Notice. The parties have since briefed their positions on whether
those events have mooted the suit, and the Court has yet to rule on
that issue.
On July 8, 2022, Plaintiffs asked Defendants whether they would
assent to Plaintiffs' contemplated motion to amend the complaint to
add more named plaintiffs if Defendants intended to press their
argument that the case had become moot. Almost three weeks later,
the Defendants responded that they would not assent.
The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PQq65t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Susan B. Church, Esq.
DEMISSIE & CHURCH
929 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 01
Cambridge, MA 02139
Telephone: (617) 354-3944
E-mail: sbc@demissiechurch.com
- and -
Iris Gomez, Esq.
Deirdre Giblin, Esq.
Mario Paredes, Esq.
Heather Yountz, Esq.
MASSACHUSETTS LAW REFORM INSTITUTE
40 Court St. No, 800
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 357-0700
E-mail: igomez@mlri.org
- and -
Elizabeth Badger, Esq.
PAIR PROJECT
98 North Washington Street, Suite 106
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 545-3373
E-mail: ebadger@pairproject.org
- and -
Kenneth R. Berman, Esq.
Mariel Smith, Esq.
NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP
155 Seaport Blvd.
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-2000
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ryan Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ryan S. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled RYAN S., individually on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01363-JVS-KES, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case,
filed on July 11, 2019, involves individual and putative class
allegations by Plaintiff Ryan S. that Defendants UnitedHealth
Group, Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare
Insurance Company, UHC of California, United HealthCare Services,
LLC, and United Behavioral Health, OptumInsight, Inc., Optum
Services, Inc., and Optum, Inc., violated ERISA and the terms of
the ERISA-governed health benefit plans in which Plaintiff and
putative class members were enrolled in various ways in connection
with the processing, adjudication, and payment of requests for
mental health and substance use benefits under the terms of
Plaintiff's and putative class members' benefit plans.
On January 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
On August 14, 2020, the Court once again granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
On September 11, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint against Defendants. On October 9, 2020, the Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.
On July 14, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On August 9, 2022,
Judge James V. Selna entered judgment in Defendants' favor and
against Plaintiff.
The appellate case is captioned as Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55761, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 12, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Ryan S. Mediation Questionnaire was due on August
19, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 12, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on October 11, 2022;
-- Appellant Ryan S. opening brief is due on November 18, 2022;
-- Appellees Optum Services, Inc., Optum, Inc., OptumInsight,
Inc., UHC of California, United Behavioral Health, Inc., United
Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare Services, Inc.,
United Healthcare Services, LLC and UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
answering brief is due on December 19, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant RYAN S., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard T. Collins, Esq.
Damon Eisenbrey, Esq.
CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
3 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Telephone: (714) 241-4444
- and -
Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation, et al., are represented by:
Andrew Holmer, Esq.
Mana Elihu Lombardo, Esq.
Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
Kenneth Taketa, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING, LLP
515 S Flower Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 622-4750
US BANK NATIONAL: Kirsner Suit Removed to D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bernard M. Kirsner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case
No. 2022CV32124 was removed from the Denver County Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Aug. 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02126-STV to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.
US Bank -- https://www.usbank.com/index.html -- is the 5th largest
financial services holding company in the US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 739-4200
Fax: (312) 419-0379
Email: dedelman@edcombs.com
- and -
Daniel James Vedra, Esq.
VEDRA LAW LLC
1444 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 937-6540
Fax: (303) 937-6547
Email: dan@vedralaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Maral Shoaei, Esq.
Gregory Scot Tamkin, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP-DENVER
1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202-5549
Phone: (303) 352-1146
Email: shoaei.maral@dorsey.com
tamkin.greg@dorsey.com
US GAMES SYSTEMS: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Games Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Games Systems,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07093 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
U.S. Games Systems, Inc. -- http://www.usgamesinc.com/-- is a
publisher of playing cards, tarot cards, and games located in
Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
US RETAIL FLOWERS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Retail Flowers
Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. U.S. Retail Flowers Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07076 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
U. S. Retail Flowers, Inc. -- https://www.usretailflowers.com/ --
is one of the largest florists in the country, family-owned flower
store specializing in floral arrangements, plants & gift baskets
since 1937.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
UVALDE, TX: School District Faces Lawsuit Over Mass Shooting
------------------------------------------------------------
William Melhado, writing for The Texas Tribune, reports that on
behalf of Uvalde mass shooting victims and their families, the
California-based law firm Bonner & Bonner is seeking $27 billion
from a litany of governmental entities over the May 24 Robb
Elementary School massacre that left 19 children and two teachers
dead.
Charles Bonner served the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School
District with the multibillion-dollar claim on Aug. 22, requesting
compensation for the victims. Bonner told The Texas Tribune he
intended to serve Uvalde city leaders on Aug. 23 at a City Council
meeting.
As evidence of the school district's responsibility, the claim
pointed to a Texas House committee's report that investigated the
shooting as well as law enforcement's response. The report, which
was published a month ago, found that "systemic failures and
egregious poor decision making" contributed to the gunman's ability
to get inside a classroom and law enforcement's delayed response in
confronting him.
In addition to serving the school district and City Council, Bonner
intends to seek damages from the list of law enforcement agencies
present at Robb during the shooting and Daniel Defense, the
manufacturer of the AR-15 the shooter used that day.
The claim, which could become a precursor to a class-action
lawsuit, puts the would-be defendants of a potential suit on
notice. Bonner said he hopes to reach a settlement ahead of the
class-action suit, but if those parties don't come to the
negotiating table, he plans to file the federal lawsuit in
September.
Bonner said the claim seeks to establish a medical monitoring fund
to pay for counseling for those affected by the incident and
further compensation for the victims of the shooting, their
families and the other people in the school on the day of the
tragedy.
As it stands, the class named in the prospective lawsuit covers
nine families of shooting victims, but Bonner said he expects that
more people impacted by the shooting will sign on moving forward.
"The theme of this invitation to negotiate is accountability,
responsibility and justice, and that's what we want for everyone in
that class. We will leave no victim behind," Bonner said.
Anne Marie Espinoza, a spokesperson for the school district, did
not respond to a request for comment on Aug. 23. [GN]
VAIL RESORTS: Quint Suit Seeks to Certify Collective & Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DEAN QUINT, JOHN
LINN, and MARK MOLINA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03569-DDD-GPG (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a collective and class defined
as:
"All current and former Vail Resorts hourly employees who
worked in the United States and who were not compensated for
work-related equipment and cell phone costs or "off-the-
clock" work including, but not limited to, travel time,
donning and doffing time, and training time during the three
years preceding the filing of this Complaint through
judgment.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges in painstaking detail that Vail's
corporate policy or practice is to not pay Hourly Employees for all
hours worked or for equipment and expenses in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Department of Labor ("DOL")
regulations and state law.
Vail Resorts is an American mountain resort company headquartered
in Broomfield, Colorado.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 8,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wBguET
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward P. Dietrich, Esq.
EDWARD P. DIETRICH, APC
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 300-8450
Facsimile: (310) 300-8401
E-mail: edward@dstlegal.com
- and -
Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
OMNUM LAW APC
9333 Genesee Ave., Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 539-9767
E-mail: bgaldston@omnumlaw.com
VICE MEDIA: Kramer Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vice Media LLC. The
case is styled as Denise Kramer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Vice Media LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04915-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Vice Media Group LLC -- https://www.vicemediagroup.com/ -- is an
American-Canadian digital media and broadcasting company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 594-5300
Email: byagman@milberg.com
WALMART INC: Judge Tosses Fudge Mint Cookies Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
August 23, an Illinois federal judge dismissed a putative class
action lawsuit against Walmart over its fudge mint cookies
(subscription to Law360 required). The plaintiff Eugene DeMaso
claimed that the product label was misleading because the cookies
did not contain fudge made from dairy fats or actual mint leaves.
However, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle held that the label
was not misleading because no consumer expects the fudge to be made
with dairy fats, or that the mint refers to anything other than a
flavor.
DeMaso had alleged that fudge must contain dairy ingredients as its
source of fat, but that the Walmart cookies contain only vegetable
oils. DeMaso's allegation was largely based on his own definition
of fudge. However, the definition of "fudge" was not at issue but
what a reasonable consumer expects fudge to mean. Judge Norgle held
that DeMaso did not plausibly allege that reasonable consumers
would expect fudge to contain fat from dairy ingredients rather
than vegetable fats.
DeMaso also argued that the declaration of the word "mint,"
pictures of mint leaves, and green packaging led consumers to
believe the cookies contained mint as an ingredient. However,
Walmart suggested that absent words such as "made with mint," a
reasonable consumer would only conclude that the cookies tasted
like mint. Agreeing with Walmart, the court found that mint is most
commonly associated with flavor, and that reasonable consumers
would read the mint representation as a flavor and it would be
unreasonable and fanciful to conclude otherwise.
DeMaso sought to pursue his claims on behalf of a class of Illinois
consumers, as well as consumers in 25 other states. The case was
dismissed with prejudice. [GN]
WEBER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Weber Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's August 2021 initial public offering.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Weber, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/weber-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=31014&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Weber includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Weber was
reasonably likely to implement price increases; (2) as a result,
consumer demand for Weber's products was reasonably likely to
decrease; (3) due to the resulting inventory buildup, Weber was
reasonably likely to run promotions to "enhance retail sell
through"; (4) the foregoing would adversely impact Weber's
financial results; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
DEADLINE: September 27, 2022
Aggrieved Weber investors only have until September 27, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT INFO:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. (212) 425-1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
WESTROCK COMPANY: Waldrop FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marion Waldrop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WestRock Company, Case No.
SUCV2022001297 was removed from the Superior Court of Henry County,
Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on Aug. 24, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-03425-SEG-JKL to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
WestRock -- https://www.westrock.com/ -- is an American corrugated
packaging company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Octavio Gomez, Esq.
THE CONSUMER LAWYERS, PLLC
412 E. Madison St., Suite 916
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 299-8537
Email: tav@theconsumerlawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Adam Merar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002-2812
Phone: (713) 860-0089
Email: mamerar@seyfarth.com
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Tapply Sues Over Concealment of Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Tapply, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00758 (W.D. Mich., Aug.
19, 2022), is brought against Defendant as a result of their
concealment of the Defect that was present in their gas ranges.
Whirlpool gas ranges, including those sold under the Whirlpool,
Maytag, KitchenAid, JennAir, Amana, Roper, Admiral, Affresh, and
Gladiator brand names (the "Ranges"), had dangerous latent defects
in the design of their front-mounted burner control knobs that make
the Ranges susceptible to unintentional actuation (the "Defect").
The control knobs on the Ranges are prone to, and do, depress and
rotate as a result of minor, inadvertent contact. When the knobs on
the Ranges are accidentally and inadvertently contacted, Ranges
actuate without warning to the consumer. This unintentional
actuation of the Ranges' cooktops in turn creates a hazardous
condition and serious risk of fire, property damage, and personal
injury. The defective condition of the Ranges is the result of the
low detent (catch that prevents motion until released) force and
tiny distance the burner control knobs need to travel to be turned
to the "on" position, which is inadequate to prevent unintentional
actuation. In other words, the ease with which the knobs can be
pushed in and rotated without resistance fails to prevent the
Ranges from being actuated inadvertently.
Since at least 2018, Whirlpool has known that its Ranges were
susceptible to unintentional actuation. Consumers have filed
numerous incident reports about the Defect with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (the "CPSC"). Consumers have also filed
complaints with Whirlpool directly via product reviews. Because the
existence of the Defect was concealed by Whirlpool, Plaintiff and
the Class were deceived and deprived of the benefit of their
bargain. A range that turns on without a consumer's knowledge has
no value because it cannot be used safely. Alternatively, the
Ranges have far less value than promised at the point of sale,
because a range prone to unintentional actuation, and the attendant
risk of harm, is much less valuable than one that operates safely,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a purchasers of Whirlpool gas ranges.
Whirlpool markets and distributes major home appliances and small
domestic appliances primarily under the Whirlpool, Maytag,
KitchenAid, JennAir, Amana, Roper, Admiral, Affresh, and Gladiator
brand names.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Phone: (248) 971-2500
Email: dfink@finkbressack.com
nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 567-8300
Fax: (215) 567-8333
Email: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
711 Van Ness Ave, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
WHITING OIL AND GAS: Hystad Ceynar Files Suit in D. North Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whiting Oil and Gas
Corporation. The case is styled as Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC, on
behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons v.
Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00138-CRH
(D.N.D., Aug. 24, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation operates as an oil and gas company.
The Company offers exploration, development, and production of
crude oil, natural gas, and liquid.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A Barton, Esq.
Seth K Jones, Esq.
Stacy Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Phone: (913) 563-6250
Email: george@bartonburrows.com
seth@bartonburrows.com
stacy@bartonburrows.com
- and -
Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
Robert B. Stock, Esq.
VOGEL LAW FIRM (FARGO)
218 NP Avenue
PO Box 1389
Fargo, ND 58107-1389
Phone: (701) 237-6983
Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com
rbslitgroup@vogellaw.com
WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over Shortage of Public Defenders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Casey, writing for WPR, reports that a class action lawsuit
filed on Aug. 23 is the latest step to reform an overwhelmed public
defender system where some defendants in Wisconsin are waiting
months in jail to see an attorney.
The lawsuit claims there's a backlog of about 35,000 pending
criminal cases across the state because of a shortage of public
defenders. Eight plaintiffs from Wisconsin are named in the suit,
all of whom have been waiting for an appointed attorney for several
weeks or months.
In Wisconsin, the public defender's office represents criminal
defendants who meet income requirements, and represent indigent
minors in delinquency cases. The system is split between public
defender staff attorneys employed by the state and private criminal
defense attorneys who take public defender cases for an hourly
fee.
According to Wisconsin State Public Defender Kelli Thompson, about
17 to 20 percent of staff attorney jobs are currently unfilled. At
the same time, there is a shortage of private attorneys willing to
take public defender cases.
Four legal action groups, including the Wisconsin Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed the lawsuit against Gov. Tony Evers
and members of the Wisconsin Public Defender Board on
Aug. 23.
The lawsuit asks the court to order that criminal charges against
indigent defendants be dropped if they aren't appointed counsel
within 14 days. An indigent defendant is a person who doesn't have
sufficient income to afford a lawyer. The vast majority of people
charged with crimes -- about 4 out of 5 criminal defendants -- rely
on court-appointed lawyers and public defenders because they lack
the means to hire their own attorney, according to the American
Civil Liberties Union.
"This lawsuit hopefully is a wake-up call to build a system that
actually operates and actually functions fairly for everybody
involved," said John Birdsall, a lawyer representing the Wisconsin
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in the lawsuit.
A statement from the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers called the backlog a "constitutional crisis," saying the
failure of the state to provide attorneys violates an individuals
Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The suit points out that the
Wisconsin Supreme Court has indicated that a delay of greater than
14 days is unreasonable.
"Defendants have persistently failed to meet this obligation, and
it will continue to do so unless this Court grants the relief
requested by Plaintiffs," the suit states.
Hank Schultz is also representing the Wisconsin Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers. He said the point of the lawsuit isn't
about money, but rather justice.
"We're not asking for anything other than people get the lawyer
that they're entitled to within 14 days -- which is kind of the
outer limit of what our state supreme court has said is reasonable
-- or their case gets dismissed," Schultz said.
Delays in the judicial system can have consequences for defendants,
victims and even witnesses, according to the National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers. They say critical information like
witness statements and evidence can be lost or destroyed if there
are delays in court proceedings.
Schultz said it's not the point of the lawsuit to discuss how to
fix the system.
"We're asking the court to tell them (state government) to do their
jobs. How they do it is something they're going to have to figure
out," he said.
The New York University School of Law's Center on Race, Inequality,
and the Law is also representing the plaintiffs.
"The public defense crisis in Wisconsin demonstrates the utter
failure of criminal legal system stakeholders to ensure that the
fundamental right to counsel is protected -- not just for the
wealthy and well-connected, but for anyone facing prosecution and
the loss of liberty," said Jason Williamson, executive director of
the center.
Adam Plotkin, legislative liaison for the Office of the State
Public Defender, said the office is actively working to address a
lack in staff and resources.
"We're familiar with the issues that are being talked about it.
They're issues that we've talked about for a while now," Plotkin
said. "I think we've done a significant amount to try and address
them within the bounds of the budget and the authorization we
have."
The office has moved permanent staff around the state to areas that
are understaffed, Plotkin said. It used American Rescue Plan Act
funds to hire more support staff, and they are offering free or
reduced cost training to encourage new attorneys to take more
public defender appointments.
On Sept. 15, the office will also submit its budget request to the
state. Plotkin said that request will include a significant
increase in the rate they pay private lawyers and more money to add
needed staff. [GN]
YUMA REGIONAL: Rivera Suit Removed to D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arturo Rivera, Cory Troy, Emily Troy, Haley
Manobianco-Reily, Michael Reily, Molly Reily, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional Medical
Center, Case No. S-1400-CV-202200352 was removed from the Yuma
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on Aug. 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01411-DWL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home
-- is a 406-bed, not-for-profit hospital dedicated to providing
outstanding medical care to the residents of Yuma and the
surrounding communities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW & ASSOCIATES PC
205 W Randolph St., Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP - MINNEAPOLIS, MN
1100 IDS Ctr.
80 S 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 641-0844
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
- and -
Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
Phone: (480) 348-6400
Fax: (480) 348-6415
Email: hlr@zimmreed.com
- and -
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
BARNOW & ASSOCIATES PC
205 W Randolph St., Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 621-2000
Fax: (312) 641-5504
The Defendants are represented by:
Michelle Marie Buckley, Esq.
POLSINELLI PC - PHOENIX, AZ
1 E Washington St., Ste. 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: (602) 650-2000
Fax: (602) 264-7033
Email: mmbuckley@polsinelli.com
- and -
Paul Gregory Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - DENVER, CO
1801 California St., Ste. 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Fax: (303) 861-7805
Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
ZARBEE'S INC: Lopez Sues Over Systematical Misrepresentation
------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zarbee's Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-04465-SVK (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's systematical
misrepresentation of how much melatonin is in the supplements it
sells.
Melatonin is a neurohormone that regulates the brain's sleep cycle.
Millions of consumers take over-the-counter melatonin supplements
to help them sleep. Because melatonin alters brain chemistry, it is
important that these supplements are accurately dosed and labelled.
Many Zarbee's melatonin products are specifically marketed for
young children. Like millions of other consumers, the Plaintiff
bought Zarbee's melatonin for her children and trusted the accuracy
of Zarbee's dosing and labelling.
To determine how much melatonin is really in Zarbee's, a university
mass-spectrometry laboratory tested multiple bottles, including her
bottle. The results were alarming—the bottles are substantially
(and seemingly randomly) overdosed. The true amount of melatonin in
her bottle was 216% of the claimed amount. Zarbee's systematically
misrepresents how much melatonin is in the supplements it sells.
Consumers are being misled and overcharged and children are being
put at risk, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is domiciled in Salinas, California and purchased the
Defendant's product.
Zarbee's is a major U.S. brand of melatonin supplements, sold
nationwide at retailers like Walmart, Kroger, and Target.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, California 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Email: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
[*] Class Actions to Impact European Litigation Landscape in 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson Dunn lawyers disclosed that towards the end of 2022, Europe
will likely see a wave of class action legislation. Many member
states of the European Union ("EU") will have to either devise new
class action regimes or amend their existing provisions on
collective redress. They have until Christmas Day 2022 to implement
the EU Directive on Representative Actions into national law. The
new procedural rules must be applied to new collective claims
raised by 25 June 2023.
So far, only the Netherlands has voted to amend its class action
regime to comply with the Directive. Most other EU countries will
have to take legislative action in the fall. The EU directive, once
implemented, will allow for more cross-border mass litigation
throughout Europe. Some states will use the opportunity to
strengthen their jurisdiction by incentivizing plaintiffs to file
cross-border representative actions in their courts, paving the way
for cross-border forum shopping in Europe.
1. The EU's Directive on Representative Actions and Its Core
Requirements
In 2020, the European Union issued a Directive on Representative
Actions (EU Directive 2020/1828), which obliges all EU member
states to amend their respective national rules of civil procedure
to allow qualified entities to file collective actions for a class
of consumers.
The member states enjoy considerable leeway to transfer the
Directive's broad requirements into their national legal system.
For example, member states are free to implement either an opt-in
or an opt-out mechanism for consumers to join the collective
action. Consequently, national provisions on collective actions
will still differ from country to country. However, for the first
time, all of Europe will have some form of collective redress to
allow consumers to directly claim compensation from a defendant.
Still, the Directive does not change the current European law on
cross-border jurisdiction or conflict of laws.
The core requirements under the Directive which each member state
must implement at a minimum are:
1. Relief? Member states have to provide at least one procedural
mechanism by which a qualified entity can sue on behalf of
consumers for a variety of redress measures (compensation, repair,
replacement, contract termination) or injunctive relief. Some
preexisting representative actions in Europe (i.e. in Germany) have
so far allowed only declaratory judgments for consumers.
2. Claimant? Only qualified entities have standing to sue on behalf
of consumers; special criteria apply for entities bringing
cross-border actions. This procedural setup is designed to avoid
abusive litigation. In the legislative ideal, representative
actions should be driven by consumer protection organizations who
have the consumers' best interests instead of their own financial
interest in mind.
3. Predicate Laws? The Directive requires that such representative
actions can be filed for the violation of 66 EU laws for consumer
protection, which are listed in the Directive's annex. Over the
past 30 years, member states have transferred this EU consumer
protection legislation into their national laws. Today, core
provisions in the member states' civil codes (i.e. contract
formation with consumers and defects liability) are based on the
referenced EU legislation. The scope of the Directive also includes
more ancillary EU legislation regarding claims by consumers arising
out of, inter alia, unfair commercial practices, air travel,
financial services, loans, food safety, electronic communication,
and data protection. Seemingly every transaction with consumers in
the EU could therefore be subject of a representative action in the
future.
4. Funding? Qualified entities may be funded by third parties as
long as conflicts of interests are prevented. When justified doubts
regarding a conflict arise, qualified entities shall disclose their
sources of funds used to support the representative action.
5. Discovery? In accordance with pre-existing national and EU law,
member states shall allow courts to order the defendant or third
parties to disclose additional evidence which lies in the control
of the defendant or a third party. Some EU jurisdictions already
have such procedural mechanisms in place. These mechanisms are
generally limited in scope compared to US discovery. For example,
in Germany, plaintiffs have to show that they require a specific
document that would buttress their case before the court can order
the defendant to turn it over. The Directive ensures that member
states can keep these pre-existing national procedural provisions.
They are also free, however, to vote for procedural rules more akin
to US-style discovery, if they desire.
6. Cost-Shifting? As is customary in the EU (and unlike the US),
the losing party shall bear the costs of the litigation. This is
meant to discourage frivolous lawsuits. So if the case is
dismissed, the qualified entity that brought the lawsuit on behalf
of consumers will have to bear the entire cost of the proceedings.
This – theoretically – includes the opposing party's attorneys'
fees. However, the recoupable amount for attorneys' fees is often
capped by national law. The Directive does not affect these caps
and it is unlikely that member states will change them to the
detriment of qualified consumer protection entities. Even if
successful, defendants will therefore not be able to shift their
costs entirely to the plaintiff. The consumers behind the
representative action generally will not bear any costs.
7. Tolling of Statutes of Limitations? Pending representative
actions (both for redress measures and injunctive relief) shall
suspend or interrupt the national statutes of limitation for the
consumers' individual claims.
8. Settlements? Similar to US class actions, all settlements in EU
representative actions must be scrutinized by the court. The court
will not approve the settlement if it violates mandatory national
law or includes unenforceable conditions. Additionally, member
states can allow the court to reject the settlement, if it is
"unfair". Settlements are final and binding for the parties as well
as the consumers. However, consumers may opt-out of a settlement.
2. The Netherlands Set the Tone with a Plaintiff-Friendly
Interpretation of the Directive
Many European countries either remain hesitant to approach
legislation on collective redress or are still debating how to
allow consumers to effectively resolve their grievances without
inviting the specter of a US-style "class action industry" into
European courtrooms.
The Netherlands, on the other hand, have already embraced the new
procedure and have taken a leading role in its implementation. The
Dutch parliament already passed class action legislation in 2020.
In June 2022, as the first country in the EU to do so, the
Netherlands amended this regime to fully comply with the EU
Directive. Rather than simply implementing the Directive's core
requirements, the Netherlands have used the legislative leeway
afforded by the EU to create a plaintiff-friendly class action
regime which will strengthen the position of Dutch courts to
resolve cross-border collective disputes. The main staples of the
new Dutch representative action are:
1. Its scope goes far beyond the required minimum of sanctioning
violations against EU consumer protection law. All subject-matters
fit for a civil lawsuit can be litigated. Most notably, this
includes climate change litigation, for which Dutch courts have
built a plaintiff-friendly reputation with major verdicts against
the Dutch Government in 2018 and Royal Dutch Shell in 2021.
2. The representative action is not limited to consumers. Companies
can join a representative action as well.
3. For purely national litigation, the Netherlands pose very
limited requirements for the representing qualified entities. Even
entities which were founded for the sole purpose of bringing one
particular representative action will have standing in Dutch
courts. In cross-border litigation the requirements will be
stricter as set out by the Directive.
4. Similar to a US class action, Dutch plaintiffs will have to
opt-out of the class should they not want to participate in the
litigation. Dutch representative actions are also open to
plaintiffs residing outside the Netherlands, as long as they belong
to the class and actively opt-in. International plaintiffs will
also be part of any settlement. This will drive up the amounts in
dispute compared to representative actions in neighboring countries
like France and Germany, which favor opt-in mechanisms.
Consequently, representative actions in the Netherlands will be
particularly attractive for plaintiffs and third-party litigation
funders.
5. Other than the Directive's minimum requirements, the Netherlands
have not imposed any restrictions on third-party funding.
Litigation funders may not influence litigation strategy and the
financial independence of the qualified entity must be
safeguarded.
Some significant differences to US class actions still remain. The
Netherlands have not introduced US-style discovery into their
representative action, which the Directive would have allowed for.
Plaintiffs will also not be able to sue for punitive damages.
3. Outlook: A Diverse Litigation Landscape in Europe with
Opportunities for Plaintiffs
The European landscape for collective redress will remain diverse
even after 2023. Not all EU member states will implement the
Directive as broadly as the Dutch. For example, the German Attorney
General has already indicated he will propose legislation that will
be more narrowly tailored to the underlying EU Directive instead of
overhauling Germany's collective redress mechanisms in one
legislative swoop.
However, following the example set by the Netherlands, some
countries might try to incentivize plaintiffs and litigation
funders to sue multi-national companies in their own courts by
devising plaintiff-friendly procedural rules.
Even if such a competition among member states will not ensue, any
reform of Europe's collective redress system will present new
opportunities for plaintiffs, in particular if last-minute
legislation to meet the deadline of 25 December 2022 results in
loopholes or unprecise statutes. Companies, courts, and law firms
will have to adapt to the ensuing new legal challenges. With no or
little case law on the books after the reform, plaintiffs have
particular incentives to file creative lawsuits.
The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this client alert:
Markus Rieder, Patrick Doris, Alexander Horn, Kahn Scolnick, and
Christopher Chorba. [GN]
[*] Edwin Coe Attorney Discusses Class Action Trend in UK, Europe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Greene, Esq., of Edwin Coe LLP, disclosed that "Class action"
is a phrase redolent of US-style litigation in which attorneys
represent large 'opt out' (see below) groups of consumers or others
in massive claims resulting in multi-million jury awards against
the industry for both losses and treble penalty damages. The jury
awards and settlements can be eye-wateringly large. Indeed it is
the potential downside of a hostile jury that may lead the industry
to settle these cases after initial sparring. The UK and Europe
have been historically hostile to the American model but new court
procedures, a new breed of claimant lawyer firms working on
contingencies (some of whom originate from the USA) and the growth
in litigation investment funds have seen the increasing use of the
nomenclature and mechanisms of 'class actions' in the UK. The
American Chamber of Commerce has long warned against the trend but
is this sea change a good or bad thing for industry and trade?
News channels recently reported on an £800 million group legal
action that TSB is facing from customers for "excessively high"
mortgage rates. In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the
specialist court dealing with competition issues, there are now
many gargantuan claims of hundreds of millions of pounds or
billions. Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook/Meta are facing
various claims for alleged breaches of competition law. One such
claim is a claim in the CAT against Apple said to be worth £1.5bn
on behalf of consumers using and paying for services on Apps on
Apple's App Store on iPhones and iPads. Another claim against Apple
has just been issued in relation to the batteries in iPhones said
to be a claim of £768 million.
This is not a phenomenon that is occurring simply in the UK.
Similar actions are being brought in many European jurisdictions.
The App Store claim for instance is also being brought in the
Netherlands on behalf of all European consumers, so is
substantially larger than that in the UK.
What then is driving this change and should we welcome it?
Court Rules
Procedure in the courts has changed over the years seeking to allow
greater access to justice for individuals and seeking greater
efficiency in administering claims by large numbers of individuals.
This has developed over the past 30 years from the inception of
Group Litigation Orders in the 90's to the introduction of 'opt
out' proceedings under the Consumer Rights Act for competition
cases. The opt-out process reflects a US-style class action to the
effect that if you fall within the 'class' as certified by the
court, you are part of the claim and bound by it unless you opt
out. The claim against Apple App Store above has recently been
certified by the CAT as an opt-out action.
Claimant firms
There are a growing number of law firms that specialise in class
litigation and only undertake work for claimants. Some recent
additions are firms from the USA opening in London, attracted by
the current trends and opportunities. Some of these firms have
sufficient capital to run these cases themselves but others may
seek the assistance of third-party funding.
Third-party funding
Investment in litigation, in which the investor meets ongoing costs
and then takes a share of the proceeds, has been with us since it
became lawful some 25 years ago but until now it has been a cottage
industry with a few specialist houses investing in higher value
claims as an alternative investment product. In the past five years
however the market has grown exponentially borne out of the two
factors above. The litigation finance industry has almost doubled
the size of its UK assets over the past three years, with some
£2.2 billion in balance sheet value. For larger claims, the
investment may be many millions of pounds but that will mean the
funders share of the proceeds will itself be 3 or 4 times the
investment.
No doubt this is a growing phenomenon but how does it compare to
the much-debated process in the USA? There are several important
differences;
First, the law is different. The liabilities in the USA are much
wider than in the UK and Europe.
There are no juries. The more limited scope of damages is policed
not by 12 citizens but by 1 judge.
There are no penal damages such as RICO treble damages in the USA.
The losing party pays the costs. This is a huge disincentive to run
spurious cases and funders, in particular, want to ensure the claim
has good prospects of success.
The opt-out process is limited to competition cases and does not
for instance apply to GDPR breaches.
It is early days but whilst class actions may strike fear into
industry counterintuitively it is the very largest European
companies that are leading the way in many claims as claimants.
Litigation against MasterCard and Visa for elements of their fees
that are said to be unlawful has been conducted in large part by
large corporations, such as Sainsbury's and Asda. Claims in the CAT
in relation to a cartel run by truck manufacturers have been
brought by, for instance, BT, The Post Office and Ryder, many with
the backing of litigation funders. Where claims have been brought
by classes of consumers they have tended to be for mass data
breaches and against the major data platform companies such as
Google and Apple, often for historic wrongs.
It is early days for class litigation and it remains to be seen
what entrepreneurial lawyers backed with investors' funds may yet
achieve but for the time being, we remain far from the US model
and, whilst those that have sinned may pay the price in mass
claims, it is the industry itself that is taking the lead in this
new litigation era. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Intl. Has 178 Cases Pending as of June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natura &Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon International, was named
a defendant (along with other manufacturers of cosmetics and other
products that, unlike those marketed by Avon, were designed with
asbestos) in personal injury lawsuits brought in US courts,
according to the Company's Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2022, there were 178 individual
cases pending against Avon International and during the six-month
period ended June 30, 2022, 51 new cases were started and 24 were
closed or settled. The value of the settlements was not material,
individually or in the aggregate, for the operating results of the
Company or the subsidiary Avon International.
A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3cyhJhk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., has been named a defendant in numerous
personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that
certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos. As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, there were 178
and 158 individual cases. respectively. pending against the
Company. During the three months ended June 30, 2022, 38 new cases
were filed and 18 cases were dismissed, settled or otherwise
resolved. The value of the settlements was not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of
operations for the three months ended June 30, 2022. Additional
similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products
are reasonably anticipated.
"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and
will continue to do so. To date, there have been no findings of
liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide
trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of
cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very
large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the
outcome of all individual cases pending against the Company, and we
are only able to make a specific estimate for a small number of
individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal
proceedings. For the remaining cases, we provide an estimate of
exposure on an aggregated and ongoing basis, which takes into
account the historical outcomes of all cases we have resolved to
date. Any adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the
aggregate, could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases,
which we expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant,
though some costs will be covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3AzSlzP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Faces Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related product liability claims continue to be filed
against two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries: CIRCOR
Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the
stock of which the Company acquired in 1998, and Spence Engineering
Company, Inc., the stock of which the Company acquired in 1984,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January
2020 through the sale of the I&S business. However, the Company has
indemnified the buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made
against Hoke. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and the Company's historical
experience in resolving these claims, the Company does not expect
that these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse
effect on the financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity of the Company.
"During the second quarter of 2021, the Company was notified of a
contract termination by one of its Industrial segment customers.
The basis for termination is under dispute and the ultimate outcome
of this matter is uncertain. During the fourth quarter of 2021 the
Company recorded a full allowance against the outstanding
receivables resulting in a charge of $6.3 million. The Company also
has outstanding guarantees of its performance under the contract in
the aggregate amount of $3.4 million. Further, the Company is
exposed to claims from sub-contractors for contract termination.
The Company has received claims from sub-contractors and has
accrued an additional $1.6 million in charges during the fourth
quarter of 2021 as its best estimate of probable loss. Should the
negotiations or settlement process be unfavorable for the Company,
the Company may be unable to collect the outstanding receivables,
be exposed to risk of loss on the outstanding performance
guarantees, additional claims from sub-contractors, losses in
excess of amounts accrued on claims from subs-contractors and
potential future claims should any be asserted."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3RsZQ27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Personal Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions
allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While there are relatively few cases that name
Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were
pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).
Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation as discussed below.
Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in that regard."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ABKFgy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part
of the merger of EFH were defendants were defendants in personal
injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases alleged illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of August 1,
2022, one lawsuit is pending. Additionally, in connection with the
EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim
were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos
under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such
lawsuits in the future. None of these claims or lawsuits were
discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding. The costs to defend or
resolve these lawsuits and the amount of damages that may be
imposed or incurred could have a material adverse effect on
Sempra's results of operations, financial condition, cash flows
and/or prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wsuQHL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Personal Injury Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc., has assumed defense of
asbestos personal injury lawsuit subject to a reservation of rights
and objection to the claim for indemnification, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The acquiror of certain assets from a former operating unit of the
Company has been named as a defendant in an asbestos personal
injury lawsuit and has submitted a claim for indemnification and
tendered defense of the matter to the Company.
Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured,
produced, or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that
allegedly caused the injury underlying this action. The Company
does not expect that this claim will have a material adverse effect
on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that
will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity
obligations of its former operating unit relating to these claims.
The Company intends to vigorously defend all currently active
actions, and it does not anticipate that this action will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes of any legal action
cannot be predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
this will be the case.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Tw0Swk
*********
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 2022. 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 ***