/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230109.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 9, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 7 Headlines ABS WELLNESS LLC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ACTIVEHOURS INC: Golubiewski Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ALBERTSON'S LLC: Davis Suit Removed to S.D. California ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Files Suit in D. Colorado ALL REPAIR: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unwanted Calls AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Youngblood Suit Removed to C.D. California AMERICAN FAMILY: Celaya Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin AMERICOOL HEATING: Horton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ANTONY J. BLINKEN: Bahiraei Files Suit in N.D. Illinois APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Apple Watch Blood Oxygen App ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Suit Over Deceptive "100% Natural" Labels BAD BAKERS INC: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: $1.7M Settlement to be Heard on March 28 BARNORTH GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BASTIAT USA: Settles Labor Class Action Suit for $1.5 Million BELDEN INC: Breach Class Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set April 19 BIG FROG CUSTOM: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BIOLINERX LTD: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Violations BOB'S DISCOUNT: Can Compel Arbitration in Wong Class Suit BRANDY MELVILLE: Settles Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages for $1.45-M BRIAN JOHNSON: Faces $25M Class-Action Suit Over Deceptive Scheme BUILD.COM INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BURTON CORPORATION: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CARDONE CAPITAL: Judge Reversed Dismissal Order in Securities Suit CARVANA CO: Rodeo Collection Suit Transferred in D. Arizona CASEY'S MARKETING: Faces Powell Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CFR CORP: Aviles Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: McMahon Seeks Cert. Over Funds' Misappropriation CLEAN CAUSE: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COTTON CITIZEN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CREDENCE RESOURCE: Reisz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York CTCI AMERICAS: Descant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DARWIN SELECT: Summary Judgment in MHM Suit Affirmed in Part DAVE INC: Golubiewski Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania DEUTSCHE BANK: $26.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 31 DIALPAD INC: Blunt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DICKS SPORTING GOODS: Asad Files Suit in C.D. California DIGNITY HEALTH: Medical Records Suit Can Proceed in Federal Court DOLLAR GENERA: Gomez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida DRAFTKINGS INC: Pomerantz LLP Probes Potential Securities Claims DTE TRADING INC: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Lambe Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina EQUIFAX INC: Consumers Received Cash Payments in Breach Settlement FAMILY MEDICINE: Consolidated Cyberattack Suit Petition Released FIRST WESTERN: Court Denies Fleck Trust's Bid to Certify Class FTX TRADING: Faces Class Suit From Customers Over Digital Assets FTX TRADING: Judge Kaplan to Preside Over Bankman-Fried's Trial GAOTU TECHEDU: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 28 GEMINI TRUST: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 27 GEMINI TRUST: Faces Class Action in New York Over Earn Program GOOGLE LLC: 9th Cir. Reversed Dismissal Order in Privacy Class Suit GREY DOG INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Suit Over Chocolate Containing Heavy Metals HOPE COLLEGE: Faces $5MM Data Breach Class Action in Michigan HOPE COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach HYRECAR INC: Class Action Suit Over Privacy Violations Remanded IBEX GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $2.4-M IMPERIAL PARKING: Zakay Law Group Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit INVICTA WATCH: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JMC RESTAURANT: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MESA AIR: $5MM Class Action Settlement to be Heard on April 6 MONTREIGN OPERATING: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Ruff Alleges NEWELL BRANDS: $102.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 10 NUTS.COM INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OREGON: Partial Summary Judgment in Snider v. ODOC Granted in Part PAR-A-DICE HOTEL: Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Feb. 8 PATENAUDE & FELIX: Bellini Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PETERSON OIL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Heating Oil Claims PLANET GROUP: Foster Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois PLUSFOUR INC: Bergida Files FCRA Suit in D. Nevada PRESS & PROFIT: Misclassifies Service Technicians, Leekin Claims RENEGADE FURNITURE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Garza Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas SCRIPPS HEALTH: Proposes $3.5M Settlement to Resolve Privacy Suit SINGULARITY FUTURE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 7 ST. MARY'S MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Nurse's Sexual Acts STARBUCKS CORP: Deceptively Advertised Sprouted Bagel, Suit Says SUPER MICRO: $18.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 2 SYSCO ATLANTA: Madison Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT Wages TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Trims Claims in Amitiza Antitrust Suit THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS: Class Settlement Final Hearing Set Feb. 27 TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TUFENKIAN IMPORT-EXPORT: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TWITTER INC: Lawyers Seek to Move Proposed Class Action to Delaware UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Colleton Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS: Reuveni Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Barnette Suit Transferred in D. Connecticut UNITED HEALTHCARE: Aventus Health Sues Over Unreimbursed Services UNIVERSAL POOL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Appeals Court Declines to Rehear COVID Suit US STEEL: $40MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 20 USA TODAY: Underpays Site Editors, Mathews Class Suit Claims VILLAGE OF OSSINING: Diaz Restaurant Files Suit in S.D. New York WELCOME SACRAMENTO: Ervin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLA OPERATIONS: White Sues Over Benzene Contaminated Products WELLS FARGO: Jan. 26 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set WHITE MOUNTAIN PUZZLES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WORLD SPA ENTERTAINMENT: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York YOTI (USA) INC: O.C. Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois [*] Data Breach Class Actions Impact U.S. Healthcare Organizations ********* ABS WELLNESS LLC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABS Wellness, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABS Wellness, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01410-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ABS Wellness LLC in Safety Harbor, Florida specializing in in-home personal training for: weight loss, building lean muscle, functional fitness, nutrition, holistic health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ACTIVEHOURS INC: Golubiewski Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Activehours, Inc. The case is styled as Dan Golubiewski, Steven Checchia, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Activehours, Inc. d/b/a Earnin, Case No. 3:22-cv-02078-MEM (M.D. Pa., Dec. 30, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Other Contract. Activehours, Inc. doing business as Earnin -- https://www.earnin.com/ -- is a financial services company that provides earned wage access services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chandler Steiger, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Fax: (412) 626-7101 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com ALBERTSON'S LLC: Davis Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as William Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00045420-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Dec. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02078-H-MSB. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 9, 2022, the alleged liability period for his wage and hour claims seeking unpaid wages begins on May 9, 2018, which factors in the four-year statute of limitations for the Plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code and the 178 day statute of limitations tolling period.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Ray E. Boggess, Esq. Taylor B. Brown, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, California 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: jkb@paynefears.com reb@paynefears.com tbb@paynefears.com ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Align Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Misty Snow, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Align Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:22-mc-00217-RMR (D. Colo., Dec. 30, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as MOTION to Compel Production. Align Technology -- https://www.aligntech.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Harold Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204 Boulder, CO 80303 Phone: (202) 210-9393 Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com ALL REPAIR: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Repair and Restoration, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. All Repair and Restoration, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07931 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. All Repair & Restoration LLC was founded in 2015. The company's line of business includes specialized repair services.[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 AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unwanted Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker at Bloomberg News reports that Amazon.com Inc.'s online pharmacy PillPack LLC will face a nationwide class in a lawsuit over third-party vendor marketing calls. Chief Judge David G. Estudillo of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington certified Dec. 23 a class of individuals claiming they received unwanted calls made using an artificial or pre-recorded voice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Although plaintiff Aaron Williams separately claims that PillPack is liable for marketing calls made to telephone numbers on the national Do Not Call Registry, Estudillo said it appeared he was only seeking certification. [GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Youngblood Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Youngblood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 22STCV20876 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 20, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-09220-JAK-PLA. The Plaintiff asserted one cause of action for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that Amazon "does not provide consumers with access to written warranties, prior to sale, in a manner that complies with the Pre-Sale Availability Rule" of the Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a Vizio television. The Plaintiff contends that the "Warranty & Support" section of the page displaying a Vizio television has a link to click for warranty information and that the link displays a message instructing to "contact the manufacture directly or visit their website for more information" about the product's warranty. The Plaintiff argues that this does not comply with the Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Neema Sahni, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643 Phone: (424) 332-4800 Email: nsahni@cov.com - and - Kathryn E Cahoy, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real, 10th Floor 5 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Fax: (650) 632-4800 Email: kcahoy@cov.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Celaya Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. The case is styled as Refugio Celaya, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Case No. 3:22-cv-00712-jdp (W.D. Wis., Dec. 14, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. American Family Insurance also abbreviated as AmFam -- http://www.amfam.com/-- 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: (615) 354-1144 Fax: (731) 664-1540 Email: brandon@msb.law - and - Thomas Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 339-1421 Email: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com AMERICOOL HEATING: Horton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICOOL HEATING & A/C, LLC, d/b/a AMERICOOL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, a Washington Limited Liability Company; LINCOLN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of the marital community comprised of LINCOLN ANDERSON and TAMARA ANDERSON; NORMAN UPSON, individually and on behalf of the marital community comprised of NORMAN UPSON and MELISSA UPSON, Case No. 22-2-19035-3 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 29, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01838. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and putative class members for preparatory work performed off- the-clock, for work performed during meal and rest periods, and for travel time that extended the workweek beyond forty hours.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Devin M. Smith, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 929 – 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425) 646-6108 Fax: (425) 646-6199 Email: devinsmith@dwt.com - and - Madhura Panjini, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 241-2300 Fax: (503) 778-5299 Email: madhurapanjini@dwt.com ANTONY J. BLINKEN: Bahiraei Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Antony J. Blinken, et al. The case is styled as Afshin Bahiraei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, United States Department of State; Jeffrey M Hovenier, in his official capacity as the Charge d' Affaires at the United States Embassy Ankara, Turkey; Ur Jaddou Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Case No. 1:22-cv-07360 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 30, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Immigration Actions. Antony John Blinken is an American government official and diplomat serving as the 71st United States secretary of state since January 26, 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taher Kameli, Esq. KAMELI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 17 North State Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 233-1000 Email: taher@kameli.com The Defendants are represented by: AUSA – Chicago United States Attorney's Office (NDIL-Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Apple Watch Blood Oxygen App --------------------------------------------------------------- Patently Apple reports that a Class Action against Apple claims that the Apple Watch Blood Oxygen app incorporates biases & defects against persons of darker skin. Alex Morales has begun a class action against Apple in the Southern District of New York claiming that the Apple Watch incorporates biases and defects of pulse oximetry with respect to persons of darker skin tones. The complaint before the court reads in-part: " Apple, Inc. ("Defendant") manufactures, markets, and sells the Apple Watch, purporting to measure the oxygen level of a wearer's blood directly from their wrist ("Product"). The interest in blood oxygen levels extends began at least two hundred years ago hot air balloon flyers and mountain climbers needed to ensure survival. Later, these groups included astronauts, pilots and divers. The early devices, were used in a person's ear, used light-based technology or spectrophotometry to measure oxygen levels. In the 1970s, a fingertip oximeter was invented that was easier to use than its predecessors. For decades, there have been reports that such devices were significantly less accurate in measuring blood oxygen levels based on skin color. The "real world significance" of this bias lay unaddressed until the middle of the Coronavirus pandemic, which converged with a greater awareness of structural racism which exists in many aspects of society. Researchers confirmed the clinical significance of racial bias of pulse oximetry using records of patients taken during and before the pandemic. The conclusion was that "reliance on pulse oximetry to triage patients and adjust supplemental oxygen levels may place Black patients at increased risk for hypoxemia." Since health care recommendations are based on readings of their blood oxygen levels, white patients are more able to obtain care than those with darker skin when faced with equally low blood oxygenation. While traditional fingertip pulse oximeters are capable of measuring blood oxygen levels and heart rate, wrist-worn devices like the Product determine heart rate, as blood oxygen measurements from the wrist are believed inaccurate. Algorithms designed for fingertip sensing are inappropriate when based on wrist measurements, and can lead to over 90% of readings being unusable. Though one recent study concluded the Product was able to detect reduced blood oxygen saturation in comparison to medical-grade pulse oximeters this fails to recognize the failings of pulse oximetry in general with respect to persons of color. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $400, excluding tax and sales. The Product was manufactured, identified, marketed, and sold by Defendant and expressly and impliedly warranted to Plaintiff that it did not incorporate biases and defects of pulse oximetry with respect to persons of darker skin tone. [GN] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Suit Over Deceptive "100% Natural" Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that AriZona Beverages labels many of its drinks as being natural when they actually contain "not natural" ingredients like ascorbic acid and coloring, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Thomas Iglesias filed the class action lawsuit against AriZona Beverages USA LLC Dec. 23 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, AriZona falsely labels and advertises its beverage products, including its AriZona Kiwi Strawberry Fruit Juice Cocktail, Diet Peach Iced Tea and Grapeade, as being "All Natural" or "100% Natural." However, the products contain at least one of the following ingredients that are not natural: added coloring, ascorbic acid, high fructose corn syrup, malic acid and erythritol, the lawsuit alleges. "This information is barely visible in the back of the products," the AriZona class action states. "Furthermore, even if consumers see these ingredients, they do not necessarily know that this ingredient is a preservative because they lack specialized knowledge." Consumers paid more for product due to 'natural' labeling, AriZona class action alleges The company also allegedly falsely labels and advertises a subset of its AriZona beverage products as containing "No Preservatives" when, in reality, each of the products contains ascorbic acid, a well-known preservative, Iglesias alleges. Consumers paid an inflated price for the products due to the "natural" representations, the AriZona 100% natural class action states. Iglesias looks to represent anyone who purchased the products in California in the last four years. He sued for violations of California consumer laws and breach of warranty and unjust enrichment and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. The lawsuit follows a similar class action filed against AriZona in March, alleging its beverages are marketed as being "all natural" when they contain added coloring. Were you misled by the "all-natural" labels on AriZona beverages? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Tiara Avaness and Yana Hart of Clarkson Law Firm. The AriZona 100% natural class action lawsuit is Thomas Iglesias et al. v. AriZona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-09108, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California [GN] BAD BAKERS INC: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bad Bakers Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jade Brooks, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bad Bakers Inc., Bad Stars Inc., Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2022-00332118-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 29, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil." Bad Bakers -- https://www.badbakers.com/ -- offers delicious glazed, round, & speciality donuts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: $1.7M Settlement to be Heard on March 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in the Bondholder Action have reached settlements totaling $1.749 million (the "Subsequent Settlements") with The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (n/k/a MUFG Bank, Ltd.), Credit Suisse Group AG and The Norinchukin Bank (the "Settling Defendants"). This class action was brought on behalf of holders of U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Debt Securities alleging price-fixing and manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate. The Settling Defendants deny this claim and maintain they did nothing wrong. Plaintiffs previously settled with seven other defendants for a total of $68.625 million (the "Initial Settlements"). The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's dismissal of the Bondholder Action on the merits, ending the case as to the non-settling defendants. That dismissal is now final, and as a result, the Subsequent Settlements are the only remaining opportunity for members of the Bondholder Class to recover on the claims in the litigation. Am I Included? You are a Member of the Subsequent Settlement Classes if you owned (including beneficially in "street name") any bond or other debt security: -- that has a CUSIP identification number; -- on which interest was payable at any time between August 1, 2007 and May 31, 2010; -- where that interest was payable at a rate expressly tied to U.S. Dollar LIBOR; and -- that was not issued by any of the Defendants, their subsidiaries or affiliates as obligor. What Are My Options? FILE A CLAIM. Any claims already submitted in the Initial Settlements will be automatically considered for recovery in the Subsequent Settlements and do NOT need to be re-submitted. Recovery for any new claims submitted in the Subsequent Settlements will be limited to the net settlement funds in the Subsequent Settlements. New Claim Forms in the Subsequent Settlements can be filed electronically on the Settlement Website or may be downloaded and mailed to the Claims Administrator. Claim Forms must be postmarked (if mailed) or submitted online by February 27, 2023. EXCLUDE YOURSELF. If you wish to exclude yourself from any of the Subsequent Settlements, you must do so in writing to the Claims Administrator by March 1, 2023. OBJECT. If you wish to object to the terms of any of the three Subsequent Settlements, you must file a written objection postmarked by mail no later than March 1, 2023. DO NOTHING. If you did not previously submit a claim, and you do nothing now, you will both forfeit your right to receive a monetary benefit from the Subsequent Settlements and give up your right to assert claims against the Settling Defendants about the U.S. Dollar LIBOR manipulation claims at issue in the Bondholder Action. ATTEND A HEARING. The Court will hold a hearing on March 28, 2023 at 11:00 a.m., to consider, among other things, whether to approve the Subsequent Settlements and a request by the lawyers representing the Class for up to one-third of the aggregate Settlement Fund in attorneys' fees, plus litigation expenses. The hearing may be held in the Courthouse or may be telephonic. In either case, you may ask to be heard by the Court, but you do not have to. This is only a summary of the full notice, which contains more detailed information (the "Detailed Notice"). The Detailed Notice provides instructions on how to submit a Claim Form, request exclusion and object, all of which you must comply with. For more information, or to obtain a copy of the Detailed Notice, visit www.BondholderLIBORSettlements.com, call 1-888-205-5804, or send an email to info@BondholderLIBORSettlements.com. Karen MORRIS Morris and Morris LLC Counselors At Law 4023 Kennett Pike, #254 Wilmington, DE 19807 and Robert Kitchenoff Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC 150 Monument Road, Suite 107 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 BARNORTH GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barnorth Group, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Barnorth Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07900 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Barnorth Group, LLC covers Restaurant services.[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 BASTIAT USA: Settles Labor Class Action Suit for $1.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Taylor, writing for Business Insider, reports that Brandy Melville's owners will pay $1.5 million to settle ex-workers' claims of labor law violations. Nearly 4,000 former California employees will receive payouts of roughly $200 each. In 2021, Brandy Melville employees described racism, Hitler memes, and exploitation to Insider. Thousands of former employees of controversial fast-fashion retailer Brandy Melville are receiving checks in the mail this holiday season. In November, the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles issued its final judgement in a class-action lawsuit filed by former Brandy Melville employees in 2016. The companies that own Brandy Melville stores in California -- including Bastiat USA, Inc., which controls the brand nationally -- agreed to pay $1.45 million to settle ex-workers' claims the retailer violated California labor laws. The former Brandy Melville workers who filed the lawsuit said employees were forced to work "off the clock," as well as through meals and without overtime. While California employers are required to provide a 10-minute break for every four hours of work, plaintiffs said Brandy Melville failed to do so. Eighteen of Brandy Melville's 41 US stores are located in California, according to the brand's website. Stephan Marsan, CEO of Bastiat USA, founded the chain in Italy in the '90s and opened its first American store in Westwood, California in 2009. Since then, the fast-fashion brand has gained a cult following among teen and pre-teen girls, despite (or perhaps because of) its "one-size-fits-most" model. Brandy Melville's owners denied all wrongdoing in court documents. [GN] BELDEN INC: Breach Class Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set April 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Belden agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a November 2020 data breach. The settlement benefits United States residents who received a notice from Belden concerning the November 2020 data breach. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit accused Belden of negligence and breaches of its duty by failing to protect consumer data in a 2020 data breach. In 2020, Belden was the victim of a data breach which compromised employee information and other data. Belden hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can receive up to $500 for unreimbursed data breach losses, fees for credit services and lost time. Losses covered by the settlement include bank fees, fraudulent charges, communication expenses, credit monitoring costs and more. Class Members can receive compensation for lost time at a rate of $21.37 per hour, capped at five hours. All of these payments are subject to a $500 cap, but payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Belden agreed to make business practice changes for three years as part of the settlement. These changes include enhanced cybersecurity protections, employee training and more. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 24, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 19, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, Class Members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 8, 2023. Who's Eligible United States residents who received a notice from Belden concerning the November 2020 data breach Potential Award $500 Proof of Purchase Documentation of unreimbursed expenses and losses or lost time 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 02/08/2023 Case Name Edke v. Belden Inc., Case No. 2021-CH-00047, and Mackey v. Belden Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00149, both in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Final Hearing 04/19/2023 Settlement Website BeldenDataBreachSettlement.com Claims Administrator Belden Cyberattack Claim Forms P.O. Box 8060 San Rafael, CA 94912-8060 Info@BeldenDataBreachSettlement.com 866-755-1865 Class Counsel William B Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Anderson Berry CLAYEO C ARNOLD PLC Defense Counsel Gavin Reinke [GN] BIG FROG CUSTOM: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Frog Custom T-Shirts, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Big Frog Custom T-Shirts, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07934 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Big Frog Custom T-Shirts, Inc. -- https://www.bigfrog.com/ -- offers personalized t-shirt & apparel with photo & text printed online.[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 BIOLINERX LTD: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues its investigation of potential civil securities claims on behalf of shareholders of BioLineRx Ltd. (NASDAQ: BLRX) resulting from allegations that BioLineRx may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased BioLineRx securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8781 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 19, 2022, BioLineRx filed a Form 6-K attaching its press release, which stated, it had "entered into definitive agreements with several institutional investors for the issuance and sale in a registered direct offering of 13,636,365 of the Company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) and warranted to purchase up to an aggregate of 13,636,365 ADSs, at a combined purchase price of $1.10 per ADS and associated warrant. Each ADS represents fifteen (15) ordinary shares, par value NIS 0.10 per share, of BioLineRx." The press release continued, stating, "[t]he gross proceeds from the offering . . . . are expected to be $15 million. BioLineRx intends to use the net proceeds to facilitate the commercial launch of Motixafortide in autologous stem cell mobilization for multiple myeloma patients and general corporate purposes, which may include working capital and funding clinical trials. . . ." On this news, the price of BioLineRx's American Depositary Shares (ADS) fell 33% to close at $1.02 per ADS on September 19, 2022, damaging investors. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221229005286/en/[GN] BOB'S DISCOUNT: Can Compel Arbitration in Wong Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KENNETH WONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 22-4220 DSF (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration. Defendant Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC (BDF) moves to compel individual, non-class arbitration based on contracts between BDF and Wong. Wong opposes. BDF is one of the fastest growing furniture chains in the nation. It markets, promotes, and sells furniture with added protection plans known as "Goof Proof." It describes "Goof Proof" as a service contract and "the best way to protect your investment from a wide variety of accidents for 5 years. Wong alleges that the plan does not protect the furniture customer's purchase and is riddled with exclusions that are disclosed to purchasers only after they purchase the plan and receive the full agreement by mail or email. Wong alleges that the plan excludes coverage for customer misuse -- even if unintentional, unexpected, or unforeseen -- and even if it is considered "general wear & tear." BDF also classifies rips, tears, breaks, and punctures as defects that are also excluded. The most common reason BDF denies claims is because the claimant cannot identify the specific event that caused the damage. In such cases, the denial is categorized as customer misuse or wear and tear. It also denies claims if customers are unable to identify the date the accident occurred, or if there is more than one mark or puncture in the furniture. BDF categorizes other denials of claims as "accumulated stains/tears/etc," "frame defects," "repetitive," or "preventable." On March 23, 2019, Wong purchased a Jaxon sofa and chair combo for $749, and the "Goof Proof" plan for $129 at the Bob's Discount Furniture store at 19800 Hawthorne Blvd. Torrance, CA 90503. During the sales process, BDF representatives offered Wong the "Goof Proof" plan and assured him that it would cover any possible damage. Wong asked what the plan covered and was told it would cover any issue that would come up over a five-year period. He relied on this representation when he made his purchase. In June 2020, Wong submitted claims for his purchase because the chair arm became deformed and warped, and the seat cushions suffered loss of resiliency. BDF denied his claim on the grounds that it was not a customer caused accident and the plan did not cover loss of foam resiliency. Wong alleges that BDF makes most of its profit through the sale of "Goof Proof" plans. BDF sales personnel receive bonuses for the number of plans sold, creating the incentive to give customers false assurances about the coverage provided. Wong alleges that he would not have purchased the plan if he knew "its exclusions would be used to swallow up coverage." He asserts that the plan is worth less than he paid, and he would not have paid as much, or anything, for the plan absent BDF's false and misleading statements and omissions. Wong brings a putative class action suit on behalf of all California citizens who purchased Goof Proof for personal or household use within the statutory period. He asserts six causes of action: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), (2) false and misleading advertising in violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), (3) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (4) breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, (5) bad faith insurance deal, and (6) unjust enrichment. The parties do not dispute that the March 23, 2019 sales receipt, reflecting Wong's purchase of furniture and the "Goof Proof" coverage as well as the "Goof Proof" terms and conditions each contain an arbitration provision. Wong contends that the arbitration provisions are unenforceable. BDF contends the provisions compel individual arbitration and preclude class arbitration. Judge Fischer finds that the agreement to arbitrate is enforceable. He finds that Wong's claim is not specific to the arbitration provision and must be submitted to the arbitrator. Wong also fails to demonstrate that the agreement to arbitrate is substantively unconscionable. Finally, individual, non-class arbitration is appropriate in the case. For these reasons, Judge Fischer grants BDF's motion to compel arbitration. The action is stayed pending completion of the arbitration. The clerk is ordered to administratively close the case. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report no later than two weeks after completion of the arbitration. If the arbitration is not completed by June 24, 2024, the parties must file a joint status report on that date. At that time, the Court will consider whether to dismiss the case rather than to continue the stay. Failure to file a required joint status report is likely to result in dismissal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4stjv4uy from Leagle.com. BRANDY MELVILLE: Settles Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages for $1.45-M -------------------------------------------------------------- thefashionlaw.com reports that Brandy Melville has settled a long-running, consolidated lawsuit, which accused it of maintaining a "consistent policy" of failing to pay full wages and/or overtime to all hourly employees, and running afoul of California state law in the process. As reported by Business Insider, the settlement, which follows from a final judgment from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles last month, will see the Los Angeles-headquartered teen retailer pay $1.45 million to almost 4,000 individuals who worked at Brandy Melville between October 12, 2012 and July 4, 2021. The class "will receive a net $805,000, with the rest of the nearly $1.5 million going towards attorney's fees and costs," per BI, which pointed to recent social media posts from former Brandy Melville employees who claim that they have received settlement checks from the brand. The matter got its start in January 2016 when Maria Allen and Maurice Brown filed a lawsuit in California state court, accusing Brandy Melville and related entities of "knowingly and intentionally" violating California's labor code and engaging in unfair competition under California state law. Several months later, Katrina Lanni filed a similar lawsuit against Thomas Aquinas, Inc. dba Brandy Melville, in which she claimed that despite being employed by the company as hourly employees, on "a regular and consistent basis," she - and all proposed class members - were "not properly compensated for all hours worked" because Brandy Melville "failed to pay [them] for each and every hour worked," and they routinely worked "off the clock" without proper compensation. No Breaks, Inaccurate Record-Keeping Specifically, Lanni alleged in her October 2016 complaint that Brandy Melville employees were "regularly required" to: (1) work without being paid for all hours worked at the appropriate rate; (2) work without being provided meal periods; (3) work without being provided rest periods; and (4) work without Brandy Meville maintaining "accurate time records." Among other things, she maintained that Brandy Melville employees were forced to work over five hours per day without being provided a timely thirty-minute uninterrupted meal break or being compensated in the event that such a break was not taken in violation of California state law. Beyond that, Brandy Meville - which is well-known (and has been criticized) for its one-size sizing system and white-washed advertising - also allegedly required employees to work four-hour increments without being provided with required rest periods and failed to inform employees of their right to take rest periods in the first place. Brandy Melville denied the claims lodged against it by Lanni in an answer filed back in 2016, and also set out an array of affirmative defenses. In addition to asserting that Lanni and the other class action plaintiffs lacked standing, failed to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action, and did exhaust their administrative remedies before filing their lawsuit, Brandy Melville claimed that the causes of action "are barred by [Lanni's] and/or putative class members' willful, reckless or negligent misconduct," and that their "losses, injuries or damages were proximately caused by [their] failure to comply with [its] directions" in connection with the underlying issues in the case. Allen and Brown's, and Lanni's cases were ultimately combined, and class action status was certified, enabling a pool of individuals - which consists of non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Brandy Melville from October 12, 2012 and July 4, 2021 - to join in the settlement. The Superior Court for California in Los Angeles issued a judgement and order granting final approval of the class action settlement on November 4. Not the First Case Hardly the first headline-making case waged against Brandy Melville since it expanded into the U.S. in 2009 (after getting its start in Italy in the early 80s), the retailer was sued twice in 2020 by former higher-ups at the company, which cited contract breaches, and a culture and hiring policy that was "rife with racism, sexism and sizeism." One of those cases, the one filed by former senior vice president Luca Rotondo, was dismissed, while the other - which was filed in California state court in 2020 by Sorgi Franco and Simeone Paolo, the former heads of the company's Canadian arm - resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs. In their August 2020 complaint, Sorgi and Simeone asserted that Brandy Melville terminated their trademark agreements, thereby, cutting off their ability to run the company stores in Canada, after they refused to engage in discriminatory hiring. The Telegraph reported in September that the court ordered Brandy Melville to pay $806,000 in damages and other costs to Sorgi and Simeone in connection with the June 2022 judgment. Reflecting on the case and the "nature of the allegations levelled at Brandy Melville," the publication's writers, Laura Craik and Janet Eastham stated that "it is striking that, in an era of cancel culture, that the brand appears to have survived relatively unscathed; its tween and teen customers, usually so socially aware, still queuing up to buy into the brand." The cases are Katarina Lanni v. Thomas Aquinas Inc., BC637213 (Cal.), and Maria Allen et al., v. Brandy Melville, BC607668 (Cal.). [GN] BRIAN JOHNSON: Faces $25M Class-Action Suit Over Deceptive Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Weiss at insider.com reports that the Liver King, a fitness influencer who admitted he lied about using steroids -- initially claiming he'd achieved his physique by following so-called ancestral tenets like eating raw animal organs -- is now facing legal blowback. A $25 million class-action suit has been filed in New York against the influencer, whose real name is Brian Johnson, alleging he deceptively touted a primal lifestyle to promote his various businesses. The suit names Johnson as well as two of his supplement companies: Ancestral Supplements and workout-focused The Fittest. The former offers products like MOFO: Male Optimization Formula, while the latter sells The Fittest Liver King Bar. "This action arises from an elaborate, well-orchestrated marketing and advertising scheme," reads the suit, alleging Johnson deceived and misled "vulnerable and health-conscious consumers." Johnson has roughly 1.7 million Instagram followers, 4 million TikTok followers, and just under 250,000 YouTube subscribers. He uses his platform to promote practices like taking freezing showers, walking barefoot, and eating raw liver and bull testicles. The suit calls this approach "cult-like" and "implausible," while referring to a raw meat diet as "dangerous and life-threatening." The suit continues: "Liver King's ongoing denial of using any steroid or other performance-enhancing drug, and misrepresentations concerning his alleged adherence to the ancestral tenets, further induced consumers to trust and rely on the efficacy of the ancestral tenets and purchase the products." It is being filed on behalf of anyone who has ordered any of Johnson's products. Johnson did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. Representatives for his companies told The New York Post, "We have not been served with any lawsuit at this point and it would not be appropriate for us to comment on pending litigation." Johnson admitted to using steroids on December 1, three days after fellow fitness creator More Plates More Dates shared screenshots of what appeared to be emails between Johnson and a bodybuilding coach. In one email, the sender wrote that he was taking $11,000 worth of the growth hormone Omnitrope per month, as well as a cocktail of other drugs. In his YouTube apology, Johnson suggested there was room for "pharmacological intervention" within his ancestral ideology, so long as it was "monitored and managed by a trained hormone physician." Johnson is one of a number of influencers who promote a diet that includes raw meat. Advocates say this way of eating can help with a range of symptoms from mental health to auto-immune disorders, but some nutrition experts argue anecdotal evidence isn't enough. Bonnie Taub-Dix, a registered dietitian, previously told Insider, "When you eat raw meat you run the risk of developing food poisoning," adding that some raw meat may also contain parasites like roundworms or tapeworms. Common pathogens in raw meat and organs include E. coli, salmonella, Campylobacter, and listeria, Taub-Dix said.[GN] BUILD.COM INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Build.com, Inc. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Build.com, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10988 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Build.com -- https://www.build.com/ -- is an online home improvement retailer and subsidiary of Ferguson PLC and sells bathroom, kitchen and lighting hardware, appliances and other supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com BURTON CORPORATION: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Burton Corporation. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Burton Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07929 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Burton -- https://www.burton.com/us/en/home -- is a privately-owned snowboard manufacturing company that was founded by Jake Burton Carpenter in 1977. The company specializes in products aimed at snowboarders, such as snowboards, bindings, boots, outerwear, 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 CARDONE CAPITAL: Judge Reversed Dismissal Order in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Francisco Alvarado, writing for TheRealDeal, reports that Grant Cardone has said, "Most opportunities are disguised as problems." If that's true, he has had his share of opportunities in 2022. In May, unknown robbers allegedly stole his expensive designer watch in a VIP area at Hardrock Stadium during the Miami Grand Prix. A recent Palm Beach Post investigation uncovered Cardone Capital has overcharged tenants living in an apartment complex with workforce housing owned by the Aventura-based firm. And a federal appeals judge reversed last year's dismissal of a Los Angeles class action lawsuit against Cardone and his company alleging he misled investors on social media about potential profits they could make from his multifamily deals. Cardone Capital owns about $5 billion in apartment rental complexes in South Florida and across the country U.S. Appeals Judge Barbara Lynn's decision means plaintiff Luis Pino's complaint can move forward, and other investors can join the lawsuit or file their own claims against Cardone and Cardone Capital. In siding with Pino, Lynn determined that Cardone's social media posts promoting his crowd-funded investments are subject to federal securities regulations that guard against misstatements and omissions. Cardone did not respond to a request for comment. To his millions of followers, Cardone flaunts his personal wealth while doling out advice on how they too can become rich by putting their savings, 401K earnings and other investments in apartment buildings and communities, particularly the properties he owns and the ones he is looking to purchase. Cardone also promotes his real estate deals at conferences and forums he hosts around the country. Investors place their money into real estate funds overseen by Cardone and his firm, which generate fees from the acquisition, management and disposition of the real estate assets. In 2020, Pino sued Cardone and Cardone Capital, alleging he violated securities laws based on alleged misleading statements about his real estate funds on social media. A year earlier, Pino, who resides in Inglewood, California, invested $10,000 in two Cardone Capital real estate funds after attending a Cardone summit in Anaheim, the complaint states. In May of last year, U.S. District Judge John F. Walter ruled in Cardone's favor. Walter concluded that Pino failed to adequately allege that Cardone made material misstatements and omissions. Lynn, the appeals judge, disagreed. She determined that Cardone's Instagram posts and YouTube videos are "the types of potentially injurious solicitations that are intended to command attention and persuade potential" investors. "Pino fairly alleges that the nature of social media presents dangers that investors will be persuaded to purchase securities without full and fair information," Lynn wrote. [GN] CARVANA CO: Rodeo Collection Suit Transferred in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Rodeo Collection LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARVANA CO., ERNEST GARCIA III, and MARK JENKINS, Defendants; Bhanu Phuyel, Movant; Case No. 2:22-cv-05778 was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on Dec. 29, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02190-MTL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities for the Securities Exchange Act. Carvana -- https://www.carvana.com/ -- is an online used car retailer based in Tempe, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP - RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ 55 Challenger Rd., 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Fax: (973) 639-9393 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 The Defendants are represented by: Kevin M. McDonough, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP - AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Fax: (212) 751-4864 The Movant is represented by: Daniel Brian Weiss, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1111 Summer St., Ste. 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (203) 992-4523 CASEY'S MARKETING: Faces Powell Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, DEREK L. POWELL, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASEY'S MARKETING CO., CGS STORES, LLC, and CASEY'S RETAIL COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00419-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, December 8, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff, who has worked with the Defendants in any state other than Tennessee as a full time hourly-paid employee, claims that he and other similarly situated employees regularly worked 40 or more hours per week for the Defendants throughout the last 3 years. However, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful pay practice, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated full time hourly-paid employees have suffered lost wages as well as other damages, the Plaintiff says. On behalf of himself and the putative class, the Plaintiff brings this collective action complaint to recover all unpaid overtime compensation against the Defendants, as well as liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs, post-judgment interest and court costs, and other further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Casey's Marketing Co., CGS Stores, LLC, and Casey's Retail Company own and operate a chain of convenience store in the Midwestern and Southern United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harley C. Erbe, Esq. ERBE LAW FIRM 2501 Grand Avenue, First Floor Des Moines, IA 50312 Tel: (515) 281-1460 Mobile: (515) 281-1474 Fax: (515) 281-1474 E-mail: harleyerbe@erbelaw.com - and - J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com CFR CORP: Aviles Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Damyan Aviles and Nicole Sanchez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CFR Corp., and Herve Rousseau, Case No. 1:23-cv-00001 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and violations of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Defendants, had both actual and constructive knowledge that the Plaintiffs, and that all similarly situated individuals, were performing work without proper compensation. The Defendants did not state the correct gross wages, as defined by NYLL, for any employee on any pay statement as required by NYLL or deductions from the correct gross wages. The Defendants never granted the Plaintiffs with meal breaks or rest periods of any length. The Plaintiffs were not required to keep track of their time, nor to their knowledge, did the Defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign in sheets or punch cards, that accurately reflected their actual hours worked. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to the Plaintiffs regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as bartenders and servers at the Defendants' cocktail bar. CFR Corp. owns, operates and/or controls a cocktail bar known as "Flute Champagne Bar" located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. 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 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: McMahon Seeks Cert. Over Funds' Misappropriation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that a pair of cash-paying Chipotle customers asked for class certification for their complaint alleging the Mexican food chain shorted Pennsylvania customers on their change during a nationwide coin shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs Bridget McMahon and James Rice claim Chipotle misappropriated consumer funds through its company policy of allegedly "short-changing customers who used cash to purchase food." In the event a customer used cash to make a purchase at a Pennsylvania Chipotle location, the Mexican food restaurant would withhold the coin portion of any change due, the Chipotle class action alleges. McMahon and Rice argue that limited discovery of the claims, originally made in August 2020, has been completed and that their expert reports have been filed, making the case "now ripe for certification." "Chipotle pervasively and routinely short-changed customers who did not have exact change for cash transactions," the Chipotle class action states. Chipotle aware of alleged policy to withhold coin change at Pennsylvania locations, class action claims Chipotle was aware of the alleged misconduct and that the policy/practice occurred all around Pennsylvania "with Chipotle's acquiescence and with impunity," according to the Chipotle class action. McMahon and Rice claim Chipotle is guilty of breach of contract and unjust enrichment and of violating the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, among other things. McMahon and Rice want to represent a Pennsylvania class of consumers who used cash to purchase food from a Pennsylvania Chipotle location on or before Jan. 1, 2020, and who were not given the correct change. In other news, Chipotle was among a group of restaurant chains hit with a class action lawsuit earlier this year filed by consumers claiming the establishments violated biometric privacy law by allegedly using automated vice ordering technology to store customer voiceprints. Were you not given the correct change after making a purchase with cash at Chipotle? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiffs are represented by Frank G. Salpietro of Rothman Gordon PC. The Chipotle change class action lawsuit is McMahon, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01448, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN] CLEAN CAUSE: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Cause, Inc. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clean Cause, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10995 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CLEAN Cause -- https://cleancause.com/ -- is an Austin-based premium beverage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com COTTON CITIZEN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cotton Citizen, Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cotton Citizen, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07963 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cotton Citizen -- https://cottoncitizen.com/ -- is an online store that sells a broad range of fashion wearables including t-shirts, pants, shorts, and sweatshirts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. 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 CREDENCE RESOURCE: Reisz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource Management LLC. The case is styled as Natfuli Reisz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credence Resource Management LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-10976 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credence Resource Management -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS LLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com CTCI AMERICAS: Descant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Shane Descant, Shaun Oranday, and Tiffany Rhorer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CTCI AMERICAS, INC, AND CTS COMPLETE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00308 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 29, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. During the Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants, they regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed." Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs at their normal hourly rate for all the hours they worked. In other words, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs for their overtime at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as preservation managers, construction managers, and system turnover technicians. CTCI is an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) company for the oil, gas, and petrochemical industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net DARWIN SELECT: Summary Judgment in MHM Suit Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., & others v. DARWIN SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY & another, Case No. 22-P-167 (Mass. App.), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirms the allowance of the Superior Court's summary judgment in part, vacates in part, and remands. MHM is insured under an umbrella policy issued by Defendant Darwin Select Ins. Co., now known as Allied World Surplus Lines Ins. Co. It brought this action seeking to establish that Allied World must reimburse it for the expenses it incurred in defending a particular class action suit. MHM is a contractor that provides mental health care services to inmates at various correctional institutions, including facilities run by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). Pursuant to its contract with ADOC, for the relevant years, MHM agreed to: "indemnify and hold harmless ADOC from and against all claims, losses, or costs arising out of MHM's negligence, gross negligence, wantonness, deliberate indifference, or criminal negligence, or from willful disregard of proper or lawful written instructions from the Commissioner of the ADOC." In April of 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) notified ADOC by letter of its intent to bring a class action suit against various Alabama agencies and officials, alleging that substandard health care had been provided to inmates at ADOC facilities (the Dunn litigation). Although MHM itself was not named as a defendant in SPLC's notice letter, MHM was aware that it could face liability in the Dunn litigation given its contractual agreement to indemnify ADOC. Accordingly, on behalf of MHM, Western Litigation -- the third-party claims administrator for MHM's primary insurer, Evanston Insurance Co. -- notified Allied World about the imminent Dunn litigation by email dated April 28, 2014. Allied World responded that because no claim against MHM had yet been made, it did not plan to investigate the matter yet, but it urged MHM to contact it again "should this matter develop into a claim." SPLC filed the Dunn litigation on June 17, 2014. Consistent with SPLC's notice letter, MHM was not named as a party. Nevertheless, MHM promptly notified Allied World that the suit had been filed. Specifically, on June 30, 2014, acting on MHM's behalf, Western Litigation emailed Allied World what was styled as a "Supplemental Notice of Loss," which included a copy of the Dunn complaint. The record reveals that Allied World was aware that MHM had agreed to indemnify ADOC pursuant to its underlying contract, and, accordingly, that Allied World expected that MHM would be brought into the Dunn litigation. Going forward, Allied World continued to monitor the Dunn litigation. For example, on July 21, 2014, a claims handler noted that: "Insured has not been named in the complaint as of yet. Therefore, coverage on hold until insured is brought in the case." Throughout 2014 and 2015, claims handlers sent periodic emails to Western Litigation asking if MHM or its employees had been named as defendants in the Dunn litigation. Meanwhile, ADOC formally demanded that MHM indemnify and defend it with respect to the Dunn litigation. By letter dated June 24, 2014, MHM agreed to take over the defense of the Dunn litigation as to claims based on mental health services (while reserving certain rights). MHM promptly brought these developments to the attention of Evanston, its primary insurer, which initially had agreed to fund the defense of the Dunn litigation. However, believing that Evanston would keep Allied World informed (as it had notified other excess carriers in the past), MHM did not separately notify Allied World. In November of 2015, Evanston reversed its position that it would fund the defense of the Dunn litigation. That same month, MHM notified Allied World that it still had not been named as a party in the Dunn litigation, that the "time for adding parties has long since run," that it was handling its own representation in house, and that discovery was ongoing. Allied World continued to track the litigation and initiated a phone conference with MHM on April 20, 2016, with respect to the ongoing discovery in which MHM was involved. It was in that conference call that Allied World was told of ADOC's formal indemnification demand and of MHM's June 24, 2014, letter agreeing to pay certain costs of defending the Dunn litigation. Thus, Allied World learned of the June 24, 2014, letter approximately twenty-two months after the fact. After officially opening a claim regarding the Dunn litigation, Allied World disclaimed coverage on various nonexclusive grounds. MHM filed the current litigation in Superior Court in 2017. In 2019, MHM entered in a settlement with ADOC in which -- in exchange for a release of liability -- MHM agreed to pay up to $100,000 in future expenses in defense of the Dunn litigation, in addition to the expenses MHM already had incurred. The question in the current litigation then became whether Allied World bore liability under the umbrella policy for the past and future Dunn litigation expenses that were covered by this 2019 settlement. As noted, Allied World eventually prevailed on summary judgment based on two alternative grounds: (1) that MHM failed to provide reasonable notice of a claim, and (2) that MHM had not incurred any compensable "loss" or "defense expenses" under the umbrella policy. This appeal followed. First, the parties agree that MHM did not fulfill its notice obligation until April 20, 2016, almost two years after SPLC filed the Dunn litigation. Allied World argues that in light of the length of this almost two-year delay, the judge properly determined that MHM failed to provide reasonable notice even without a showing of prejudice. MHM counters by pointing to extenuating circumstances, such as how it provided Allied World notice of the Dunn litigation before that action even was filed and that Allied World was aware that MHM faced potential liability even though not named as a party. Although the issue is close, the Appeals Court agrees with MHM that these extenuating circumstances were enough to warrant having a jury resolve the reasonableness of the notice MHM provided. Therefore, to the extent that the judge relied on the absence of reasonable notice as grounds for allowing Allied World's motion for summary judgment, that ruling was in error. The Appeals Court turns then to whether the alternative grounds on which the judge relied support the allowance of summary judgment in Allied World's favor. Under the umbrella policy, Allied World is bound to cover two distinct types of expenses that MHM may incur: "defense expenses" and "losses." As noted, MHM seeks reimbursement of the expenses it incurred in defending the Dunn litigation as reflected in the 2019 settlement between MHM and ADOC. On appeal, MHM argues that these expenses constitute a loss, rather than defense expenses. Accordingly, any argument that these expenses constitute defense expenses has been waived. It follows that to the extent that the 2019 settlement between MHM and ADOC reflects that MHM would bear responsibility for expenses it already had incurred, Allied World could not be liable for those expenses, because they were not incurred "on account of" the 2019 settlement. However, the same is not true with respect to the $100,000 in future expenses that MHM agreed to incur in defending the Dunn litigation, the Appeals Court points out. Unlike the expenses that already had been incurred at the time of the 2019 settlement, it says the future expenses would be incurred "on account of" a settlement and therefore could constitute a loss under the umbrella policy. Moreover, unlike the circumstances of the 2014 letter agreement, Allied World had an opportunity to review and approve the 2019 settlement but affirmatively foreswore that opportunity. The judge erred insofar as he ruled that Allied World had proven that, as a matter of law, it could not be liable to pay these future costs. For these reasons, the Appeals Court vacates the allowance of summary judgment for Allied World on MHM's claim that Allied World is liable for funding up to $100,000 in future costs of defending the Dunn litigation, and remands for further proceedings on that issue. It otherwise affirms the judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2e99vzbv from Leagle.com. DAVE INC: Golubiewski Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dave Inc. The case is styled as Dan Golubiewski, Steven Checchia, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Dave Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-02077-MEM (M.D. Pa., Dec. 30, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Dave -- https://dave.com/ -- is a digital banking service that works off of tips and subscription fees rather than overdraft fees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chandler Steiger, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Fax: (412) 626-7101 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com DEUTSCHE BANK: $26.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- ALI KARIMI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, JOHN CRYAN, AND CHRISTIAN SEWING, Defendants. Case No. 1:22-cv-02854-JSR SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period from March 14, 2017, through September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft ("Deutsche Bank") common stock (i) on any stock exchanges located in the United States, (ii) on any alternative trading systems located in the United States, or (iii) pursuant to other domestic transactions, and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class as set forth in the full printed Notice Of (I) Pendency Of Class Action, Certification Of Settlement Class, And Proposed Settlement of Class Action; (II) Settlement Hearing; And (III) Motion For An Award Of Attorneys' Fees And Reimbursement Of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $26,250,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 33.3% of the Settlement Fund ($8,750,000), plus actual expenses up to $1,000,000. The attorney fee application will be made collectively on behalf of Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, with any attorneys' fees awarded by the Court divided as follows: Pomerantz LLP (85%) and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC (15%). An estimate of the average cost per allegedly damaged Deutsche Bank securities, if the Court approves Lead Counsel's fee and expense application, is $0.03 per allegedly damaged security. THE COURT HAS RESCHEDULED THE HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLMENT FROM JANUARY 31, 2023 AT 4:00 P.M. TO JANUARY 31, 2023 AT 9:00 A.M. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom 14B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, or by telephonic, video conferencing or other electronic means, as posted on the website of the Claims Administrator. The hearing will determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved, and (v) whether to award Plaintiffs out of the Settlement Fund pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in what amount. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Deutsche Bank Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173013, Milwaukee, WI 53217 or toll free on 1-800-232-3154. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.DeutscheBankSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than February 7, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 10, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to representatives of Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than January 17, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Deutsche Bank, or Defendants' counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Deutsche Bank Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173013 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: POMERANTZ LLP Emma Gilmore 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 egilmore@pomlaw.com Dated: November 22, 2022 By Order of the Court United States District Court Southern District of New York DIALPAD INC: Blunt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Billy Blunt, and others similarly situated v. DIALPAD, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01389 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 30, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and to seek damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. During the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and others similarly situated at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 4, 2021, until April 15, 2022, as a "Account Executive." DIALPAD, INC., operates a business communications software company within Travis County, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L Scalise, Esq. Daniel B Ross, Esq. ROSS | SCALISE LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com DICKS SPORTING GOODS: Asad Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Asad, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-09366-CAS-PLA (C.D. Cal., Dec. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. -- http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/ -- is an American sporting goods retail company, based in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Sibilia, Esq. Oceanside Law Center PO Box 861 Oceanside, CA 92049 Phone: (760) 666-1151 Fax: (818) 698-0300 Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Medical Records Suit Can Proceed in Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a California man's proposed class action over Dignity Health's alleged failure to provide his medical records in an electronic format will proceed in federal court. Travone Hooks didn't have sufficient evidence of the proposed class members' citizenship to invoke the home state controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act and return his lawsuit to state court, the US District Court for the Central District of California said. Dignity is a health-care provider that operates in 22 states. It also provides processing and fulfillment services for patient medical records requests. [GN] DOLLAR GENERA: Gomez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marissa Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2022-CA-2852-ES was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pasco County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Dec. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02974. The Plaintiff's single-count Complaint seeks relief from Defendant, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class members, in purported violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Josh A. Migdal, Esq. Yaniv Adar, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 374-0440 Email: josh@markmigdal.com yaniv@markmigdal.com eservice@markmigdal.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Pomerantz LLP Probes Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of DraftKings Inc. ("DraftKings" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DKNG). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether DraftKings and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On November 21, 2022, sports betting website The Action Network published an article reporting that DraftKings user accounts had been hacked and that funds in the users' accounts had been cashed out. DraftKings' co-founder Paul Liberman subsequently acknowledged the hacks, stating that roughly $300,000 in customer funds had been affected. On this news, DraftKings' stock price fell $0.76 per share, or 5.05%, to close at $14.29 per share on November 21, 2022. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, 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] DTE TRADING INC: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DTE Trading, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Genwright, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DTE Trading, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10983 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DTE Energy Trading, Inc. -- https://newlook.dteenergy.com/ -- operates as a gas and power marketing company. The Company provides energy sourcing and risk management solutions for municipalities, electric cooperatives, independent power producers, investor owned utilities, and retail energy suppliers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Lambe Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Lambe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-04731-BHH (D.S.C., Dec. 31, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dynamic Recovery Solutions -- https://www.gotodrs.com/ -- provides nationwide consumer collection services to industries including banking, student loan, debt purchasing, heath care, retail, telecommunication and utilities, and on line lending.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dawn Marie McCraw, Esq. PRICE LAW GROUP APC 8245 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Phone: (818) 600-5585 Email: dawn@pricelawgroup.com EQUIFAX INC: Consumers Received Cash Payments in Breach Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah O'Brien at cnbc.com reports that cash payments that were approved as part of Equifax's settlement over its 2017 data breach are now reaching consumers. The money - which comes from a $425 million consumer restitution fund created as part of the settlement - began going out Dec. 19, according to Equifax, a credit-reporting firm. Depending on how you chose to receive your share in the claims process, you may receive a check, payment to your Paypal account or prepaid card via email from the settlement administrator. "This is the last step," said John Ulzheimer, a credit expert and president of The Ulzheimer Group. "It seems like it's taken forever, but for a large class action, this one moved kind of quickly - it's just taken forever for the administrative component to occur." More than 147 million people's data was compromised In the wake of Equifax's 2017 data breach, which compromised the personal information of more than 147 million consumers - including names, birthdates and Social Security numbers - the company became the target of multiple lawsuits and reached a settlement in 2019 with the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and all U.S. states and territories. As a result, consumers who were affected by the breach had the option of signing up for either up to $125 or free credit monitoring at all three of the largest credit reporting firms: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. After implementation was delayed due to legal challenges, the settlement received final court approval early this year. Amount you receive will likely be far less than $125 While consumers who sought up to $125 began receiving payments, the amount they end up getting will likely be far less, according to the settlement administrator. On Twitter, users have reported receiving small payments, with amounts ranging from $2.64 or $5.21 to $21.06 and $40.44. Additionally, although the initial deadline to file a claim was Jan. 22, 2020, consumers are still permitted to file a claim for expenses incurred after that date but before Jan. 22, 2024, due to the data breach. That could include losses from unauthorized charges to your accounts, as well as fees paid or expenses incurred as part of recovering from identity theft. However, "there remains no evidence that the data obtained during the 2017 cyber attack . . . . has been sold or used," according to Equifax's announcement about the cash payments being sent out. Freezing your credit is 'still the best practice' Whether you filed a claim for a cash payment or free credit-monitoring - or neither - it's worth protecting your credit from criminals trying to use your personal information. The best way is to "freeze" your credit report, Ulzheimer said. "That's still the best practice, and it's free," he said. Freezing your report essentially blocks a lender from checking your report, which means a fraudster would be unable to open an account using your personal data. Once the freeze is in place, you have to "thaw" it - either temporarily or permanently - if you apply for credit or a loan so the bank can check your report. However, you would need to contact all three of the credit reporting firms to cover all your bases. You also can put a short-term fraud alert on your report, which lasts one year. Under a fraud alert, a lender seeking to approve an application must first contact you to verify the request is not from an imposter. Additionally, you only need to contact one of the credit firms to initiate a fraud alert, which in turn is legally obligated to share your notice with the other two. It also is free. However, it generally does not provide the same level of protection as a freeze. [GN] FAMILY MEDICINE: Consolidated Cyberattack Suit Petition Released ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Gay, writing for Myhighplains.com, reports that earlier in December, a consolidated class action petition was released in the 320th Judicial District Court of Potter County after four civil lawsuits against Family Medicine Centers Services, LLC (FMC Services) were combined into one back in November. According to previous reports by MyHighPlains.com, the four lawsuits, along with the consolidated class action petition, were in response to a cybersecurity attack against FMC Services earlier this year. The four lawsuits were initially filed against FMC Services by Deneli Sharber, Shanna Byers, Lyle Schafer and Jennifer Hart, formerly Jennifer Holman. According to the most recent petition, the lawsuit also consists of other class members, more specifically "all persons whose personally identifiable information or personal health information was compromised in the Data Breach by unauthorized persons, including all persons who were sent a notice of the Data Breach." On July 26, officials with FMC said they detected and stopped a network data security incident, exposing personally identifiable information and protected health information for more than 230,000 community members, including name, mailing address, date of birth, Social Security number and other protected health information. Officials stated that FMC reported the breach to the state attorneys general and the United States Department of Health and Human Services on Sept. 23, while also posting a notice of the data breach on its website. The four lawsuits, which covered essentially the same ground, were combined in Potter County District Court on Nov. 16. The Consolidated Class Action Petition was filed in the court on Dec. 15. "Plaintiffs bring this class action against FMC for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of approximately 233,948 individuals. . . ," the petition read. ". . . FMC owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect and safeguard their PRR/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. FMC breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure." In the combined petition, the plaintiffs alleged various causes of action in this lawsuit against FMC Services including negligence and alleged violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and section five of the FTC Act by not complying with industry standards. The lawsuit alleges that FMC neglected to safeguard and protect the PII and PHI of their patients by "failing to design, adopt, implement, control, direct, oversee, manage, monitor and audit appropriate data security processes, controls, policies, procedures, protocols, and software and hardware systems" which resulted in the "unauthorized release, disclosure and dissemination" of that information. The combined petition also alleges that FMC Services also breached its fiduciary duty and breached its implied contract with its patients. The lawsuit states that because patients gave FMC their PII/PHI in confidence and as a part of an implied contract to receive services from them, FMC had a duty to protect that information. "FMC's breach of its obligations of its implied contracts with Plaintiffs and Class members directly resulted in the Data Breach and the injuries that Plaintiffs and all other Class members have suffered from the Data Breach," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit also states that because it did not protect the information, FMC Services should not be permitted to "retain the money belonging to Plaintiffs and Class members" and that FMC "should be compelled to provide… all unlawful proceeds received by it as a result of the conduct and Data Breach alleged…" The plaintiffs, along with the class members represented in the lawsuit, are seeking relief in this lawsuit, including: Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class appropriate monetary relief; Plaintiffs seek appropriate injunctive relief designed to prevent FMC from experiencing another data breach by adopting and implementing best data security practices to safeguard PII/PHI and to provide or extend credit monitoring services and similar services to protect against all types of identity theft and medical identity theft. The plaintiffs are also asking for a trial by jury of the claims listed in this petition that are "so triable." According to previous reports, officials with FMC previously told MyHighPlains.com that they were unable to comment on the ongoing litigation. But they stressed that they are continuing to improve "the security of (their) network environment by monitoring the evolving cybersecurity landscape and taking appropriate actions." [GN] FIRST WESTERN: Court Denies Fleck Trust's Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE AARON H. FLECK REVOCABLE TRUST, through its Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara G. Fleck, THE BARBARA G. FLECK REVOCABLE TRUST, through its Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara G. Fleck, AARON FLECK, and BARBARA G. FLECK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST WESTERN TRUST BANK, CHARLES BANTIS, and ANDREW GODFREY Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-01073-CMA-GPG (D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel. The case arises from the Defendants' management of two investment accounts for Plaintiffs Aaron and Barbara Fleck. In May 2018, the Flecks hired First Western Trust Bank ("FWTB") to manage two trusts with a total amount of $8 million. The parties signed an Investment Policy Statement which provided, among other things, the amount of the investment, the investment time horizon, a cash flow objective of $500,000 per year, and a risk tolerance described as stable growth and low level of income; steady growth is expected. The Investment Policy Statement did not mention tax loss harvesting. The Plaintiffs allege that on Dec. 2, 2018, Aaron Fleck learned that there were major losses in both Trust portfolios and instructed FWTB to harvest the losses to offset capital gains he had realized on other transactions. FWTB did not harvest the losses. As a result, the Plaintiffs assert that they incurred damages by the oversight, breaches of fiduciary duties, and mismanagement of portfolio accounts where losses existed. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on March 16, 2021. In their Amended Complaint, they assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against FWTB on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class "of all similarly situated persons and entities nationwide consisting of all persons and entities who had accounts or portfolios consisting of assets managed by FWTB." In addition to the breach of fiduciary duty class action claim, the Plaintiffs allege several individual claims, including fraudulent inducement against all Defendants; fraudulent concealment/non-disclosure against all Defendants; breach of fiduciary duty as an individual claim against FWTB; and breach of contract against FWTB. The Plaintiffs now move for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on the issue of whether FWTB's failure to have a tax-loss-harvesting policy (and to harvest losses) was a breach of fiduciary duty to its beneficiary-accountholders. The Defendants filed a Response opposing class certification and the Plaintiffs followed with their Reply. The Plaintiffs seek certification on the issue of whether FWTB's failure to have a policy relating to tax loss harvesting was a breach of fiduciary duty to its beneficiary accountholders. Essentially, they argue that FWTB's failure to maintain a tax loss harvesting policy, by itself, constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and damaged all class members. The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to certify a class because their breach of fiduciary duty claim "is highly individualized and fact bound." They assert that the Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden of establishing the commonality and typicality prerequisites of Rule 23(a) or any of the requirements of Rule 23(b). In addition, the Defendants contend that the Flecks are inadequate representatives owing to their advanced ages, memory impairments, and other medical issues. Judge Arguello has significant reservations about whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden with respect to a number of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites. However, in the interest of judicial economy, she focuses her analysis on (1) whether Rule 23(b)(1) applies to the case; and (2) whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement and Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. Judge Arguello agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing a right to certification under Rule 23(b)(1). She says the Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that FWTB is obliged to treat the members of the class alike" with respect to tax loss harvesting or maintaining a written policy. Further, they provide no authority for their position that the mere absence of a written policy regarding tax loss harvesting constitutes a per se, large-scale breach of fiduciary duty that would be impossible to adjudicate individually. The Plaintiffs have made no showing that certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) is proper in a case where, as in the case, the action primarily seeks monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty. Judge Arguello also holds that because the evidence sufficient to resolve each breach of fiduciary duty claim will vary significantly from member to member, the question of whether FTWB breached its fiduciary duty to each client is an individual question, not a common question. Moreover, the Plaintiffs do not establish that the "common question" of whether FWTB breached its fiduciary duty as to each accountholder by not having a tax loss harvesting policy in place "predominates" over questions affecting only individual members. Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is inappropriate where, as in the present case, there are individualized facts and defenses precluding a common issue that could be resolved efficiently in a single proceeding. For these reasons, Judge Arguello finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish commonality pursuant to Rule 23(a) or predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). It is clear in the case that the factual inquiries for each breach of fiduciary duty claim will require a presentation of evidence for each putative class member. Because the Plaintiffs have not established a common, predominant issue that could be resolved efficiently in a single proceeding, their Motion for Class Certification is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/265d93es from Leagle.com. FTX TRADING: Faces Class Suit From Customers Over Digital Assets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Hals and Dietrich Knauth, writing for Reuters, report that FTX customers filed a class action lawsuit against the failed crypto exchange and its former top executives including Sam Bankman-Fried on Dec. 27, seeking a declaration that the company's holdings of digital assets belong to customers. The lawsuit is the latest legal effort to lay claim to the dwindling assets of FTX, which is already feuding with liquidators in the Bahamas and Antigua as well as the bankruptcy estate of Blockfi, another failed crypto company. FTX pledged to segregate customer accounts and instead allowed them to be misappropriated and therefore customers should be repaid first, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. "Customer class members should not have to stand in line along with secured or general unsecured creditors in these bankruptcy proceedings just to share in the diminished estate assets of the FTX Group and Alameda," said the complaint. FTX did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Bahamas-based FTX halted withdrawals in November and filed for bankruptcy after customers rushed to pull their holdings from the what was once the second-largest cryptocurrency exchange after questions surfaced about its finances. Bankman-Fried faces charges stemming from what a federal prosecutor called a "fraud of epic proportions" that included allegedly using customer funds to support his Alameda Research crypto trading platform. Bankman-Fried has acknowledged risk-management failures at FTX but said he does not believe he has criminal liability. He has not yet entered a plea and was released on a $250 million bond that included restrictions on his travel. The proposed class, which wants to represent more than 1 million FTX customers in the United States and abroad, seeks a declaration that traceable customer assets are not FTX property. The customer class also wants the court to find specifically that property held at Alameda that is traceable to customers is not Alameda property, according to the complaint. The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that funds held in FTX U.S. accounts for U.S. customers and in FTX Trading accounts for non-U.S. customers or other traceable customer assets are not FTX property. The customer class also wants the court to find specifically that property held at Alameda that is traceable to customers is not Alameda property, according to the complaint. If the court determines it is FTX property, then the customers seek a ruling that they have a priority right to repayment over other creditors. Crypto companies are lightly regulated and often based outside the United States and deposits are not guaranteed as U.S. bank and brokerage deposits are, complicating the question of whether the company or customers own the deposits. [GN] FTX TRADING: Judge Kaplan to Preside Over Bankman-Fried's Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Schumacher, writing for World, reports that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan will be the judge presiding over FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's trial following his appointment on Dec. 27. Bankman-Fried denies accusations that he defrauded investors and looted customer accounts on FTX's crypto currency exchange platform of $51 billion. The judge originally assigned to Bankman-Fried's case recused herself since her husband worked for a law firm that had worked with FTX previously. Meanwhile, former FTX customers are filing a class-action lawsuit claiming the company misused their money after promising to keep it safe and asserting they should get reimbursement before the company's former investors. Who is Lewis A. Kaplan? The Manhattan judge has built a reputation for tolerating little nonsense in his courtroom, becoming annoyed with lawyers on both sides of the courtroom, and for issuing swift decisions. He has perched in a senior position in the Manhattan federal court for more than a decade. President Bill Clinton nominated him to the bench in 1994. Dig Deeper: Read Steve West's year-in-review report in Liberties cataloging the juxtaposition of court decisions in favor of religious liberty and a culture growing more opposed to it. [GN] GAOTU TECHEDU: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Gaotu Techedu Inc. f/k/a GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GOTU, GSX) between March 5, 2021 and July 23, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 28, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Gaotu 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. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Gaotu class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2595 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 February 28, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm 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 throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) China was barring tutoring for profit in core school subjects and the policy change would restrict foreign investment in a sector that had become essential to success in Chinese school exams; and (2) the impact such regulations would have on Gaotu's operations and profitability and the value of Company securities. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Gaotu class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2595 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. 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GEMINI TRUST: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kim & Serritella LLP announces that a securities class action, captioned Picha, et al. v. Gemini Trust Company, LLC., et. al., 1:22-cv-10922 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), is pending against Gemini Trust Company, LLC ("Gemini"), Tyler Winklevoss and Cameron Winklevoss (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Gemini, a New York-based crypto asset exchange and lending platform, offered and sold Gemini interest accounts to investors via Gemini Earn, through which investors lent crypto assets in exchange for interest payments. On or about November 16, 2022, Gemini halted Gemini Earn and failed to honor any further investor redemptions. The Action asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and state law on behalf of a proposed class of persons who invested in the Gemini Earn program ("Gemini Earn") from February 2, 2021, through the December 27, 2022 (the "Class Period). The Action seeks rescission and damages. The Action alleges that Gemini made actionable misstatements that deceived investors by touting Gemini Earn as a safe method of storing crypto assets and collecting interest payments and that Gemini omitted and concealed significant information concerning the risks associated with Gemini Earn, including information concerning its so-called partner and borrower in connection with the program, Genesis Global Capital, LLC. The Action further alleges that the Defendants violated securities laws because Gemini failed to register as an exchange and/or broker-dealer and offered and sold unregistered securities without providing registration statements for such securities, which would have apprised investors of the risks and other important information associated with their investments. If you lent crypto assets through Gemini Earn during the Class Period and were harmed as a result, you are member of the proposed class and may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for members of a class. Lead plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by no later than February 27, 2023. Should the court certify a class in the Action, your ability to share in any potential recovery is not dependent upon you serving as lead plaintiff. A class has not yet been certified in the Action. Unless and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain a lawyer. You may retain counsel of your choice. If you would like to discuss the Action, your potential claims or have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Kim & Serritella LLP at (212) 931-8135 or via email at crypto@kandslaw.com. [GN] GEMINI TRUST: Faces Class Action in New York Over Earn Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Kim & Serritella LLP on Dec. 29 disclosed that a securities class action, captioned Picha, et al. v. Gemini Trust Company, LLC., et. al., 1:22-cv-10922 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), is pending against Gemini Trust Company, LLC ("Gemini"), Tyler Winklevoss and Cameron Winklevoss (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Gemini, a New York-based crypto asset exchange and lending platform, offered and sold Gemini interest accounts to investors via Gemini Earn, through which investors lent crypto assets in exchange for interest payments. On or about November 16, 2022, Gemini halted Gemini Earn and failed to honor any further investor redemptions. The Action asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and state law on behalf of a proposed class of persons who invested in the Gemini Earn program ("Gemini Earn") from February 2, 2021, through the December 27, 2022 (the "Class Period). The Action seeks rescission and damages. The Action alleges that Gemini made actionable misstatements that deceived investors by touting Gemini Earn as a safe method of storing crypto assets and collecting interest payments and that Gemini omitted and concealed significant information concerning the risks associated with Gemini Earn, including information concerning its so-called partner and borrower in connection with the program, Genesis Global Capital, LLC. The Action further alleges that the Defendants violated securities laws because Gemini failed to register as an exchange and/or broker-dealer and offered and sold unregistered securities without providing registration statements for such securities, which would have apprised investors of the risks and other important information associated with their investments. If you lent crypto assets through Gemini Earn during the Class Period and were harmed as a result, you are member of the proposed class and may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for members of a class. Lead plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by no later than February 27, 2022. Should the court certify a class in the Action, your ability to share in any potential recovery is not dependent upon you serving as lead plaintiff. A class has not yet been certified in the Action. Unless and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain a lawyer. You may retain counsel of your choice. If you would like to discuss the Action, your potential claims or have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Kim & Serritella LLP at (212) 931-8135 or via email atcrypto@kandslaw.com. CONTACT: James R. Serritella Kim & Serritella LLP 110 40th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10018 212-960-8345 www.kandslaw.com/crypto [GN] GOOGLE LLC: 9th Cir. Reversed Dismissal Order in Privacy Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Pandolfo at FOXBusiness reports that Alphabet Inc.'s Google will have to face a class action lawsuit brought by children whose parents claimed the company tracked their kids' private information and YouTube activity without parental consent in order to send them targeted ads. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle reversed a lower court decision that dismissed the lawsuit, writing that the judge had incorrectly concluded the children's state law-based claims were preempted by the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). COPPA gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to regulate how websites collect personal identifying information from children under the age of 13. The statute includes language that bars companies from liability under state laws that are "inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions" prohibited by COPPA. The 2019 lawsuit alleged that Google and other companies that post content to YouTube violated COPPA and similar state laws by collecting data and tracking the online behavior of children without parental consent. But in July 2021, U.S District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Francisco said federal law preempted the plaintiffs' claims under California, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Tennessee law and dismissed the lawsuit. The 9th Circuit panel reversed that decision 3-0, finding that state laws that supplement COPPA's regulations are not precluded by federal law. "Since the bar on 'inconsistent' state laws implicitly preserves 'consistent' state substantive laws, it would be nonsensical to assume Congress intended to simultaneously preclude all state remedies for violations of those laws," Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the unanimous court. The circuit court remanded the case back to the district court. Google-owned YouTube previously paid a $170 million fine in a 2019 settlement with the FTC and New York Attorney General Letitia James over allegations that it violated COPPA by tracking children under the age of 13 and targeting them with ads. [GN] GREY DOG INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Grey Dog, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Grey Dog, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07921 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Grey Dog, Inc. -- https://www.thegreydog.com/ -- is a neighborhood cafe & coffee shop with four locations in New York City, serving breakfast, lunch & dinner all day everyday.[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 HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Suit Over Chocolate Containing Heavy Metals ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that Hershey Co (HSY.N) has been sued by a consumer who accused the company of selling dark chocolate that contains harmful levels of lead and cadmium. In a proposed class action filed, Christopher Lazazzaro said he would not have bought or would have paid less for Hershey's Special Dark Mildly Sweet Chocolate, Lily's Extra Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa and Lily's Extreme Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa had Hershey disclosed their metals content. Hershey did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed in the federal court in Central Islip, New York. Some studies suggest that the antioxidants and relatively low levels of sugar in dark chocolate could help prevent cardiovascular disease. Lazazzaro, a resident of Nassau County, New York, sued two weeks after Consumer Reports unveiled the results of scientific testing of 28 dark chocolate bars for lead and cadmium. The magazine said that while all 28 contained the heavy metals, 23 including chocolate from Dove, Godiva, Lindt and Trader Joe's contained potentially harmful levels of lead, cadmium or both for people who eat one ounce of chocolate a day. Hershey's Special Dark bar and Lily's 70% bar were high in lead, and Lily's 85% bar was high in lead and cadmium, the magazine said. Lazazzaro said reasonable consumers would be turned off by such levels because they pose a "serious health risk," and that consumers rely on Hershey to be truthful about ingredients in its products. The lawsuit seeks at least $5 million of damages, including at least $500 per transaction under New York law. Hershey bought Lily's for $425 million in June 2021. Lazazzaro's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment, including as to whether other lawsuits are planned. The case is Lazazzaro v Hershey Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 22-07923. [GN] HOPE COLLEGE: Faces $5MM Data Breach Class Action in Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------- John Tunison, writing for MLive, reports that a federal lawsuit against Hope College over a data breach discovered in September is seeking more than $5 million. The lawsuit, filed Dec. 26 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, also is asking a judge to certify the legal effort as a class action matter. The data breach, described as "massive" by the state Attorney General's office, was reported publicly by Hope on Dec. 15 but first discovered on Sept. 27. "In addition to full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license and student identification numbers may have been compromised," according to an Attorney General statement on Dec. 28. Legal counsel for Hope College, in a letter issued to various states in mid-December, said Hope "became aware of unusual activity in its network" on Sept. 27. "Upon discovery, Hope immediately secured its network, took the impacted system offline, and engaged third-party forensic specialists to investigate the nature and scope of the incident," the letter from the Pennsylvania law firm Cipriani & Werner said. The investigation revealed that "certain Hope files may have been accessed by an unauthorized party." The attorney letter went on to say that information believed at risk included first and last names in combination with a Social Security number and/or driver's license number. Hope College agreed to provide free credit monitoring to all those potentially impacted. The attorneys said it took time for Hope to review the breach and identify those who could be at risk. The lawsuit named Jennie DeVries as the plaintiff but indicated there are up to 156,783 individuals potentially affected by the breach. It alleges that Hope College failed to properly safeguard personal data but also failed to timely notify those at risk. "Hope College accepted the responsibility of being a steward of this data while keeping the inadequate state of its security controls secret from the public," according to the lawsuit. In addition to a monetary judgment, the lawsuit asks for an order to compel Hope to "utilize appropriate methods and policies with respect to consumer data collection, storage, and safety, and to disclose with specificity the type of PII compromised during the Data Breach." Hope, when it publicly announced the breach on Dec. 15 in letters to various states and affected people, said there was no evidence so far of any attempted or actual misuse of the data. Hope also released a statement about the breach: "As a matter of policy, Hope College cannot comment on pending litigation. Hope College took great care to conduct a complete and thorough investigation, which required time to properly analyze and secure our systems, identify potentially impacted individuals, and prepare resources to help our community protect its information. Additionally, we have reported this matter to federal law enforcement and are cooperating with their investigation." State Attorney General Dana Nessel issued an advisory on Dec. 28 to current and former Hope College students who might be affected by the breach. She included a web page with information about data breaches and the steps that individuals can take to protect themselves. [GN] HOPE COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Boatman at The Holland Sentinel reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Hope College in relation to a data breach in late September. The lawsuit, filed Monday, Dec. 26, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleges Hope, in part, of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Hope College recently reported a data breach on or around Sept. 27. Investigation found that information like first and last names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and student ID numbers had been compromised. In the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Jennie DeVries of Holland says she was not notified of the breach until Dec. 15. Approximately 156,783 people are affected by the breach, the lawsuit claims. The amount plaintiffs are seeking "exceeds $5 million," exclusive of interest and costs, according to the lawsuit. In a statement provided to The Sentinel, Hope College said it can not comment on the suit, but said it "took great care to conduct a complete and thorough investigation" on the breach. "As a matter of policy, Hope College can not comment on pending litigation," the statement reads. "Unfortunately, data security incidents have become far more prevalent in recent times, and more and more education institutions have been targeted by cyber criminals. "Hope College took great care to conduct a complete and thorough investigation, which required time to properly analyze and secure our systems, identify potentially impacted individuals and prepare resources to help our community protect its information. Additionally, we have reported this matter to federal law enforcement and are cooperating with their investigation." Six counts are brought against Hope College in the suit — negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract and violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial on all claims. The lawsuit claims Hope College provided "inadequate safeguarding" of personally identifying information and failed to provide "timely and adequate notice" to affected parties that their information was "unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access of any unknown third party." This has, the lawsuit claims, caused damages to the plaintiff in forms of time and expenses related to monitoring financial accounts, exposure to fraud and identity theft, loss in value of personal information and other economic and non-economic harm. Additionally, the suit claims that class members having personal data "disseminated to the public at large" has led to "emotional pain and mental anguish and embarrassment." Among the action being pursued by the plaintiff is an award of actual, compensatory and statutory damages, an award for punitive damages, attorneys' fees, an order for Hope to utilize appropriate methods and policies for consumer data collection and an order for Hope to pay for credit monitoring services for the plaintiff and class. The breach was discovered on or around Sept. 27, at which time Hope "immediately began working" with its IT team and outside forensic and legal specialists to conduct an investigation. Once it was discovered that certain files may have been accessed by an unauthorized party, a review of what information, if any, was present was conducted. That was completed Nov. 8. Potentially affected individuals were contacted "as quickly as possible" by U.S. mail. Hope is providing "complimentary credit monitoring services" to those affected. Hope said there is "no evidence" that information has been misused by any third party and that it has taken steps to strengthen its security measures to protect against future threats. [GN] HYRECAR INC: Class Action Suit Over Privacy Violations Remanded --------------------------------------------------------------- HyreCar is an intermediary between people who own vehicles and other people who would like to drive for services such as Uber and GrubHub. Before leasing a car, HyreCar tries to ensure that the potential driver is who he says he is and has the license and driving record he claims to have. As part of this check, HyreCar sends an applicant's information, including a photograph, to Mitek Systems, which provides identity-verification services. Joshua Johnson, one of HyreCar's drivers, contends in this putative class action that Mitek has used that information without the consent required by Section 15 of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/15. Mitek removed the suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1453, and asked the district court to send it to arbitration. After the court declined, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80851 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2022), Mitek took an immediate appeal on the authority of 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1). The decision refusing to refer the suit to arbitration is affirmed, and the case is remanded for a decision whether the suit may proceed as a class action followed by a disposition on the merits (except for the claim under Section 15(c)). Remanded. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Name: Joshua Johnson v. Mitek Systems, Inc. Case No.: 22-1830 Officials: Easterbrook, Scudder, and Lee, Circuit Judges. Focus: Class Action-Illinois Biometric Privacy Act[GN] IBEX GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $2.4-M --------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that Ibex agreed to pay $2.4 million to resolve claims that it failed to protect consumers from a 2020 data breach. The settlement benefits consumers who received a data breach notification letter from Ibex informing them that their personal identifying information may have been compromised in a data security incident between July 27, 2020 and Aug. 17, 2020. According to a data breach class action lawsuit, Ibex failed to protect consumer information during a 2020 data breach. Plaintiffs in the case claim that Ibex could have prevented or mitigated the data breach through reasonable cyber security measures. The Ibex data breach was a malware attack that took place between July 27, 2020 and Aug. 17, 2020. The breach compromised personal identifying information. Ibex hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $2.4 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can collect up to $5,000 for lost time and out of pocket expenses. The settlement provides compensation for up to five hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class Members can also collect compensation for credit-related expenses, bank fees, communication charges, fraudulent losses and other expenses related to the data breach. Consumers who experienced actual or attempted identity theft or misuse of their data can receive a $100 payment, subject to the $5,000 settlement payment maximum. If the claimed amount exceeds the total net settlement fund, payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis so that each Class Member receives a proportional share of the net settlement fund. All Class Members are eligible for five years of free credit monitoring which includes up to $1 million in identity theft insurance. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 17, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for March 10, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, Class Members must submit a valid claim form by March 20, 2023. Who's Eligible Consumers who received a data breach notification letter from Ibex informing them that their personal identifying information may have been compromised in a data security incident between July 27, 2020 and Aug. 17, 2020. Potential Award Up to $5,000. Proof of Purchase Documentation of lost time and out of pocket expenses or losses. 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 03/20/2023 Case Name Sanders, et al. v. Ibex Global Solutions Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00591-TNM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Final Hearing 03/10/2023 Settlement Website IBexDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Ibex Data Security Settlement Administrator c/o Postlethwaite & Netterville PO Box 1908 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@IbexDataSettlement.com 877-659-6287 [GN] IMPERIAL PARKING: Zakay Law Group Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The San Diego labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, Reef Technology Inc., Ameripark, LLC and Lanier Parking Meter Services, LLC (collectively, hereinafter, "Imperial Parking, Reef Technology, Ameripark and Lanier Parking") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods. The class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2022-00045548-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Imperial Parking, Reef Technology, Ameripark and Lanier Parking allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections Secs 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) reimburse employees for required expenses; (5) pay wages when due; and (6) provide accurate itemized wage statements. Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period involved, not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Imperial Parking, Reef Technology, Ameripark and Lanier Parking allegedly required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Imperial Parking, Reef Technology, Ameripark and Lanier Parking failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock. As such, Imperial Parking, Reef Technology, Ameripark and Lanier Parking allegedly failed to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. If you would like to know more about the Imperial Parking, Reef Technology, Ameripark and Lanier Parking lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland Hom by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and employment law firms with offices located in California that dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices. Contact one of their attorneys if you need help with workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, and harassment.[GN] INVICTA WATCH: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07932 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Invicta -- https://www.invictawatch.com/ -- is an American watch designer and manufacturer headquartered in Hollywood, Florida.[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 JMC RESTAURANT: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JMC Restaurant Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JMC Restaurant Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07904 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JMC Restaurant Holdings is a company currently specializes in the Restaurants area.[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 MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sandra Davis, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., McClatchy Company, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00332047-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." McClatchy Newspapers Inc. -- https://www.mcclatchy.com/ -- publishes newspapers. The Company provides information related to business, sports, entertainment, multimedia, forums, and living.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com MESA AIR: $5MM Class Action Settlement to be Heard on April 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- David G. Lowthorp, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. Mesa Air Group, Inc.; Jonathan G. Ornstein; Michael J. Lotz; Daniel J. Altobello; Ellen N. Artist; Mitchell Gordon; Dana J. Lockhart; G. Grant Lyon; Giacomo Picco; Harvey Schiller; Don Skiados; Raymond James & Associates, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Cowen and Company, LLC; Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated; and Imperial Capital, LLC, Defendants. No. 20-00648-PHX-MTL SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION CLASS ACTION To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired Mesa Air Group, Inc. ("Mesa") securities pursuant and/or traceable to the company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on August 9, 2018, and who were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all members of the Settlement Class, and Defendants Mesa, Jonathan G. Ornstein, Michael J. Lotz, Daniel J. Altobello, Ellen N. Artist, Mitchell Gordon, Dana J. Lockhart, G. Grant Lyon, Giacomo Picco, Harvey Schiller, and Don Skiados (collectively, the "Mesa Defendants"), and Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Cowen and Company, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and Imperial Capital, LLC (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants," and together with the Mesa Defendants, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $5,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, on April 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 504 of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona, 85003 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated May 6, 2022; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution to Settlement Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website of the Claims Administrator, mesasecuritiesclassaction.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Mesa Securities Class Action c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173087 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Phone: (877) 354-3789 Email: info@mesasecuritiesclassaction.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: James M. Wilson, Jr. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted electronically no later than March 7, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than March 17, 2023. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are postmarked or hand delivered no later than March 17, 2023. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: November 28, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA MONTREIGN OPERATING: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Ruff Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SAMANTHA RUFF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTREIGN OPERATING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a RESORTS WORLD CATSKILLS, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-10373 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff alleging the Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Slot Attendant in Monticello, New York from about January 2018 to August 2021. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to timely pay him and other similarly situated 200 current and former manual workers of the Defendant. Throughout her employment with the Defendant, she received her pay on a bi-weekly basis instead of a weekly basis and within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages were earned. Montreign Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Resorts World Catskills operates a casino resort. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 447 Madison Ave., 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (800) 616-4000 Fax: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com NEWELL BRANDS: $102.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: HUDSON COUNTY OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NEWELL BRANDS INC., MICHAEL B. POLK, JOHN K. STIPANCICH, SCOTT H. GARBER, BRADFORD R. TURNER, MICHAEL T. COWHIG, THOMAS E. CLARKE, KEVIN C. CONROY, SCOTT S. COWEN, DOMENICO DE SOLE, CYNTHIA A. MONTGOMERY, CHRISTOPHER D. O'LEARY, JOSE IGNACIO PEREZ-LIZAUR, STEVEN J. STROBEL, MICHAEL A. TODMAN, and RAYMOND G. VIAULT, Defendants. DOCKET NO.: HUD-L-003492-18 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF NEWELL BRANDS INC. PURSUANT TO THE S-4 REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS (INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ALL DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED THEREIN) ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH NEWELL BRANDS INC.'S APRIL 2016 ACQUISITION OF AND MERGER WITH JARDEN CORPORATION (the "CLASS"). THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on February 10, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. at Brennan Courthouse, 583 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306, before the Hon. Christine M. Vanek, J.S.C., at the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, 595 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action (the "Action") as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $102,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award Class Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, which is discussed below), and, if so, in what amount; (4) to make an award to Plaintiff for representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.2 This Action is brought on behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of Newell Brands Inc. pursuant to the S-4 Registration Statement and Prospectus (including all amendments thereto and all documents incorporated therein, collectively "Offering Materials") issued in connection with Newell Brands Inc.'s April 2016 acquisition of and merger with Jarden Corporation. Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Materials contained purportedly untrue and misleading statements and that Class Members are entitled to damages under the Securities Act. Defendants expressly deny all of Plaintiff's allegations. IF YOU ACQUIRED NEWELL COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR JARDEN SHARES PURSUANT TO THE OFFERING MATERIALS AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE APRIL 15, 2016 MERGER YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than March 2, 2023) or electronically (no later than March 2, 2023). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by March 2, 2023 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. For the reasons detailed in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, if you are a member of the Class and did not request exclusion therefrom as instructed in the previously issued Notice of Pendency of Class Action, you will be bound by the Settlement if it is approved and by any judgment and release entered in the Action including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.NewellBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to: Newell Brands Securities Litigation c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions P.O. Box 3328 Portland OR 97208-3328 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. Max Schwartz, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Certified Class IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE AWARD TO PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO ONE OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL AND ONE OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY JANUARY 30, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: DECEMBER 5, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY URL// www.NewellBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com 1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.NewellBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com. 2 In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Fairness Hearing by video or telephone conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone. No further notice of such decision will be provided to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Fairness Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Settlement website, www.NewellBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Fairness Hearing. Any updates and information for accessing a telephonic or video Settlement Fairness Hearing will be posted to the Settlement website, www.NewellBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com. NUTS.COM INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuts.com, Inc. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nuts.com, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10845 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nuts.com -- https://nuts.com/ -- is a family-owned business offering the highest quality nuts, snacks, dried fruit and pantry staples.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com OREGON: Partial Summary Judgment in Snider v. ODOC Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CASEY SNIDER, et al., Plaintiffs v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00510-MK (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Pendleton Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Darrel Carlson and Jerry Anderson brought this class action alleging that the Defendants willfully and deliberately refused to protect them and the putative class members from known dangers of assault from other inmates. The Plaintiffs are two Adults in Custody ("AIC") within the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC"). They allege that in Oregon prisons, gang members still participating in gang activities are referred to as 'active,' while those who have "left the gang are called 'dropouts.' Inmates that are classified as dropouts are subject to violence at the hands of active gang members. Prior to 2019, in accordance with Oregon's policies some of the prisons housed dropouts and active gang members in separate units. In 2019, that policy was discontinued. Under the new system, ODOC provided only general population housing and incentive housing. Because of that policy, dropouts and active gang members were housed in the same units. Since the change in housing policy, the Plaintiffs have been assaulted on several occasions. In their Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs bring two claims for relief against the Defendants. First, they allege that individually named defendants, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Eighth Amendment, failed to protect them by exposing them to violence. Second, the Plaintiffs allege that the ODOC negligently exposed them to known dangers. The Defendants move for partial summary judgment on both claim because (1) the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and (2) the Plaintiff's second claim is barred by sovereign immunity. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under OAR 291-109-0140(2). The Plaintiffs agree that they either did not file a grievance or that the grievance was untimely. They, however, argue that they should be excused from the Prison Litigation Reform Act's, ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e, exhaustion requirement because no administrative remedy was effectively available. Judge Kasubhai states that the ODOC grievances are processed in accordance with ODOC's Administrative Rules Chapter 291, Division 109. ODOC's grievance rules were amended effective Oct. 18, 2019. In the case, four of the assaults occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment of Oct. 18, 2019, and one assault occurred after the effective date. Judge Kasubhai examines the OAR applicable prior to Oct. 18, 2019, and then determines the relevant changes implemented after Oct. 18, 2019. He finds that the Plaintiffs TAC alleges the misapplication of an administrative directive or operation procedure. Because OAR 291-109-0140 (2014) provides that an inmate may file a grievance as to the misapplication of any administrative directive or operational procedure or the lack of an administrative directive or operational procedure, the Plaintiffs' allegations are grievable. However, the Plaintiffs failed to file a grievance. They failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for the April 10, July 31, August 6, and August 16 assaults. Judge Kasubhai grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendants as to those assaults. Because the Defendants have demonstrated that there was an available administrative remedy, the burden shifts to the prisoner to come forward with evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. Judge Kasubhai is unpersuaded by the evidence in the record that where the Defendants acknowledge that Anderson sent the grievance within five days of the incident, and where the Defendants are in control of the process through which grievances are sent and then processed, then they could not have received the grievance within the limited time the rules require. If the Defendants are to require grievances to be filed within 14 days of an incident, then they must ensure a more robust process for receipt of grievances if they cannot accommodate receipt of grievances nine days after they are sent. Judge Kasubhai finds a remedy was effectively unavailable under these circumstances. Defendant ODOC asserts that the Eleventh Amendment bars the Plaintiffs from bringing their state law claims to this Court for adjudication. The Plaintiffs do not dispute the Defendants' contention that state law governing their state law claims do not provide the express consent necessary for waiver of immunity. However, the Plaintiffs expressly oppose the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss in order to preserve their right to refile the claims in state court. So, Judge Kasubhai grants the Defendants motion for summary judgment. ODOC is dismissed as a Defendant. For these reason, Judge Kasubhai grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. He grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment arising out of Carlson and Anderson's claims, except Anderson Section 1983 claim pertaining to the incident arising out of Nov. 14, 2019. Judge Kasubhai grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as it relates to ODOC. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybv5sr5d from Leagle.com. PAR-A-DICE HOTEL: Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Feb. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino and Boyd Gaming agreed to pay $825,000 to resolve claims that they violated BIPA with video surveillance cameras. The settlement benefits individuals whose faces were visible on certain security cameras at Par-A-Dice's Sportsbook hotel in East Peoria, Illinois between September 2020 and June 2021. According to plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino and Boyd Gaming violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting facial geometry scans of consumers without getting their consent. The law requires businesses to provide specific disclosures and get consumer consent before capturing and storing consumer biometrics. The Par-A-Dice is a hotel and casino in East Peoria, Illinois that is operated by Boyd Gaming. Par-A-Dice and Boyd Gaming haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $825,000 class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can receive a cash payment. Each Class Member is entitled to an equal share of the net settlement fund after expenses and fees are deducted. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of Class Members who participate in the settlement. If a large number of Class Members file claims with the settlement, payments will be smaller. If fewer Class Members participate, payments will be larger. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Dec. 27, 2022. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 8, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, Class Members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 6, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals whose faces were visible on certain security cameras at Par-A-Dice's Sportsbook hotel in East Peoria, Illinois between September 2020 and June 2021. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase applicable 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 02/06/2023 Case Name Pruitt, et al. v. Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino, et al., Case No. 2020-L-000003, in the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Tazewell County, Illinois Final Hearing 02/08/2023 Settlement Website ParadiceBIPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Pruitt v. PAD Settlement Administrator c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91344 Seattle, WA 98111 Class Counsel Ryan F Stephan Catherine T Mitchell STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP Steven Smith STEVEN SMITH LAW GROUP Defense Counsel Matthew D Provance Gregory Deis Ethan A Hastert MAYER BROWN LLP [GN] PATENAUDE & FELIX: Bellini Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Patenaude & Felix APC, et al. The case is styled as Christine Bellini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Patenaude & Felix APC, Credit Corporation Solutions Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-02188-DJH (D. Conn., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Patenaude & Felix -- https://www.pandf.us/ -- is a debt collection law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic St. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Erica Morris, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00332012-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (TPMG) -- http://permanente.org/ -- is a physician-led medical group in Northern and Central California with over 9,500 dedicated and exceptional physicians working together across specialties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com PETERSON OIL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Heating Oil Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Toni Caushi, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reports that a lawsuit filed by several customers against Peterson Oil Service Inc. of Worcester, that accuses the company of knowingly delivering the wrong mix of heating oil, was certified earlier in December as a class action lawsuit by a Worcester Superior Court judge. In the lawsuit, customers allege that the company's practices have affected more than 15,000 customers. First filed in 2019, the lawsuit filed by nine customers accuses Peterson Oil, Howard Peterson Jr., Sharon Peterson and Kristen Peterson Halus, of promising ordinary heating oil and instead selling them fuel diluted with large quantities of biodiesel, a type of fuel that is derived from plants and animals as a clean-energy alternative to regular fuel. The customers also allege that they had to buy more of it to generate the same amount of heat that normal heating oil would provide, and that the fuel caused heating equipment "to shut down" and damaged their heating systems. The lawsuit was expanded Dec. 9 after the customers alleged that Peterson Oil's practices impacted thousands of customers, likely over 15,000, which they allege is about 90% of the customers that Peterson Oil has serviced since 2012, when they first allegedly began using diluted biodiesel. In a Dec. 28 interview with the Telegram & Gazette, Peterson Oil's attorney Louis M. Ciavarra said that the company plans on appealing the court's decision of certifying the lawsuit as a class action, as opposed to customers filing individual lawsuits. "We're confident that when this case goes to trial, the jury will conclude that biodiesel is industry standard, is encouraged by state and federal government, and is a clean, safe and efficient alternative to petroleum," said Ciavarra. "If in fact, any individual homeowner was injured, which we do not believe is the case, then everybody's claim is unique. "The decision by the court to certify was incorrect." Regarding the allegation about the number of affected customers being in the thousands, Ciavarra said that, "Peterson Oil hasn't received even a minuscule percentage of that number of complaints from homeowners relating to biofuel." In March 2021, Peterson Oil agreed to pay $450,000 after it was fined by the state based on allegations by the office of Attorney General Maura T. Healey that the company had knowingly delivered the wrong mix of heating oil to state agencies. Healey stated that the noncompliant fuel created mechanical problems with heating systems at agencies serviced by Peterson Oil, and that the company did not meet conditions of state contracts, a violation of the Massachusetts False Claims Act. Peterson Oil had delivered fuel that contained 40% or more biodiesel by volume, while the contracts called for fuel containing no more biodiesel by volume than 5%, according to Healey's statement. A month later, the Better Business Bureau revoked the accreditations of the company and another company it runs, Cleghorn Oil, citing recent allegations of improper fuel deliveries the business settled in court. In an interview following the decision, Peterson Oil President Howard W. Peterson Jr. denied that biodiesel caused the problems and said he planned to ask the Better Business Bureau to reconsider its decision. Both businesses remain unaccredited, according to the Better Business Bureau's website. "We have taken the use of renewable biodiesel on. We feel it's better for the environment," Peterson said at the time, adding that his maintenance records show the same levels of service for customers using bioheat as opposed to traditional heating oil. [GN] PLANET GROUP: Foster Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planet Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kia Foster, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Planet Group, Inc., Planet Pharma, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07285 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Planet Group, Inc. -- https://theplanetgroup.com/ -- provide high-value outsourced global workforce solutions and consulting services to Fortune 500 and top companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donny J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com PLUSFOUR INC: Bergida Files FCRA Suit in D. Nevada -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PlusFour, Inc. The case is styled as Rachel Bergida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situatedv. PlusFour, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02150 (D. Nev., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. PlusFour, Inc. -- https://plusfourinc.com/ -- is a debt collection agency located in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M Tzall, Esq. CONTEMPORARY LEGAL SOLUTIONS PLLC 2551 N Green Valley Pkwy Building C., Suite 303 Henderson, NV 89014 Phone: (702) 666-0233 Email: office@contemporarylegalsolutions.com PRESS & PROFIT: Misclassifies Service Technicians, Leekin Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LEEKIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESS & PROFIT, LLC d/b/a VIENNA COFFEE, PETER GUGITSCHER, individually, and ANDREAS GUGITSCHER, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:22-cv-81902-DMM (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful employment policies and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a service technician from on or about October 3, 2021 until he was terminated on or about November 7, 2022. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked overtime for the Defendants, averaging around 40 hours per week of overtime alone, in addition to his 40 regular hours. However, the Defendant classified him and other similarly situated service technicians and other workers as independent contractors to avoid the additional expenses to provide them overtime compensation, workers' compensation coverage in the event of on-the-job injuries, and unemployment coverage in the event of termination. As a result, the Plaintiff did not receive any additional premium despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek, says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated service technicians and other workers, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for the overtime compensation due them, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for all other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Press & Profit, LLC d/b/a Vienna Coffee provides and continues to provide, commercial coffee machines, flavored coffees, and other products to customers, offices, and restaurants throughout South Florida. Peter Gugitscher was the CEO of Vienna Coffee, while Andreas Gugitscher was the COO of Vienna Coffee. Both controlled the Plaintiff's duties, hours worked, and compensation, and managed the day-to-day operation of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. Alex B.C. Ershock, Esq. PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (561) 544-8900 E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com ABE@PBL-Law.com RENEGADE FURNITURE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renegade Furniture Group, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Renegade Furniture Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07926 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Renegade Furniture Group -- https://renegadefurniture.com/ -- is a rapidly growing retailer revolutionizing the Furniture Industry's century-old standards for selling furniture.[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 SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Garza Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scott & Associates PC, et al. The case is styled as Robert Garza, Gloria Garza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Scott & Associates PC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-04492 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Scott & Associates PC -- https://www.spalaw.com/eng/ -- is a law firm which provides legal collection services to a number of national banks and other creditors holding consumer debt.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic St. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SCRIPPS HEALTH: Proposes $3.5M Settlement to Resolve Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- hipaajournal.com reports that a settlement has been proposed by Scripps Health to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit - In Re: Scripps Health Data Incident Litigation - to resolve all claims related to its 2021 ransomware attack. In April 2021, Scripps Health suffered a ransomware attack that was reported to the Department of Health and Human Services as affecting 147,267 patients. The attack caused major disruption at Scripps Health hospitals. Scripps Health had to redirect ambulances and cancel scheduled appointments, and the staff was forced to record patient information on paper while the San Diego-based health system restored its IT systems - a process that around a month. The investigation revealed the hackers stole files from its network on April 29, 2021, which contained protected health information such as names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and healthcare information, including information stored in medical records. The ransomware attack has proven to be incredibly costly for Scripps Health. Its financial statements show the attack cost at least $113 million in lost revenue. Multiple lawsuits were filed against Scripps Health in the San Diego County Superior Court in the wake of the data breach on behalf of individuals affected by the ransomware attack. The lawsuits allege Scripps Health failed to implement and maintain adequate security measures to protect patient information and had inadequate policies and procedures for detecting and remediating cyberattacks, despite being aware of the high risk of an attack. The plaintiffs allege they have suffered lost time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience as a result of the data breach, including being prevented from accessing the MyScripps patient portal, which is used by patients to access their healthcare information, request prescription refills, manage appointments, and communicate with doctors. The lawsuits sought damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and injunctive relief, requiring Scripps Health to implement adequate security measures to better protect patient data in the future. Scripps Health has not admitted any wrongdoing and does not accept liability for the ransomware attack and data breach. The decision was taken to settle the lawsuit to prevent further legal costs, avoid the uncertainty of trial, and resolve all claims related to the data breach. Under the terms of the settlement, class members are entitled to submit a claim for a cash payment of up to $100 which is subject to a pro rata increase based on the number of claims received. In addition, class members are entitled to submit claims for documented ordinary and extraordinary losses. The settlement amount is expected to exceed $3.5 million. Claims for reimbursement of ordinary out-of-pocket are permitted up to a maximum of $1,000 per class member. Ordinary losses include unreimbursed bank fees, card re-issuance fees, overdraft fees, over-limit fees, telephone charges, costs of credit reports, and similar losses that can be reasonably traced to the ransomware attack. Extraordinary losses are those related to identity theft that are fairly traceable to the ransomware attack and were suffered between April 29, 2021, and March 23, 2023. To qualify for reimbursement for extraordinary losses, class members must have made reasonable efforts to avoid suffering losses and to have exhausted available avenues for recovering losses related to identity theft. Class members wishing to exclude themselves from or object to the settlement have until March 8, 2023, to do so. The deadline for submitting claims is March 23, 2023. The final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2023. [GN] SINGULARITY FUTURE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Singularity Future Technology Ltd. f/k/a Sino-Global Shipping America Ltd. (NASDAQ: SGLY) between February 12, 2021 and November 17, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important February 7, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action commenced by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Singularity 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. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Singularity class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9855 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 February 7, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm 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 materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Singularity's former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Yang Jie's true educational background, that he had an outstanding arrest warrant in China, committed forgery, was the largest shareholder and Vice President of Finance, for a Nasdaq-listed lending company, China Commercial Credit ("CCC"), which failed after reporting massive losses; (2) material related party transactions with SOS Information Technology New York Inc. ("SOS") (where Jie's wife was Vice President) and Rich Trading Co. Ltd USA ("Rich Trading"); (3) independent director John Levy's long tenure as a director of CCC; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and as a result had a heightened risk of scrutiny and ultimately was subject to a United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and SEC investigation and action as well as a potential delisting by NASDAQ; and as a result (5) the Company's statements during the Class Period about the historical financial and operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of Singularity, and were materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Singularity class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9855 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. 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ST. MARY'S MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Nurse's Sexual Acts --------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert at insider.com reports that a Colorado hospital is facing a class-action lawsuit after police alleged a former nurse recorded himself sexually abusing unconscious patients. The Grand Junction Police Department confirmed in a statement emailed to Insider that Christopher Lambros, a 61-year-old former nurse, was arrested on October 25 on three felony counts of sexual assault and was remanded to the Mesa County Detention Facility. According to the arrest warrant, his bail was set at $250,000. The police department confirmed Tuesday he remains in custody. Lambros was caught by another hospital staff member in July in a patient's room at St. Mary's Medical Center, according to the arrest warrant, having apparently exposed the genitals of an unconscious woman and taken a picture of himself with his head on her stomach. The staff member reported Lambros to their supervisor, prompting an internal investigation. The patient, identified in the class-action lawsuit by the initials M.C., was notified of Lambros' misconduct by the hospital three days later. Following an investigation, law enforcement indicated Lambros had recorded multiple videos and taken photos of himself with his alleged victims and, according to the arrest warrant, in one video whispered to himself that the recordings were his "Dexter collection," referring to the TV show about a serial killer who kept trophies from his victims. Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC, the law firm that represents two victims in the class-action suit, said in a statement that law enforcement "uncovered approximately four terabytes of data originating from Nurse Lambros's devices, including videos from his cellphone showing Nurse Lambros sucking on the breasts of and digitally penetrating unconscious female patients." Four terabytes of data amounts to approximately 700,000 cellphone photos or 65,000 hours of cellphone videos, the law firm's statement added. The arrest warrant stated at least 168 of the files had been previously deleted from his phone. In the class-action suit filed by Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC on behalf of two patients, attorney Siddhartha Rathod argues that St. Mary's Medical Center and the nonprofit organizations that fund it did not sufficiently protect patients from abuse by Lambros and "knew or should have known" of his misconduct -- which included allegations of drugging, sexually penetrating, and recording his victims without their knowledge or consent. St. Mary's Medical Center had previously been sued in 2018 over similar accusations of a patient visitor sexually abusing patients. According to The Daily Sentinel, which originally reported on the accusations, the outcome of the earlier suit is unknown. The accused in the 2018 incident, Adam Stice, pleaded guilty in a separate criminal case to one count of assault and one count of unlawful sexual contact for the incident, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison, The Daily Sentinel reported. "In 2018, St. Mary's ratcheted up its surveillance cameras, ratcheted up its monitoring and things like this," Rathod told Insider, saying that the hospital was clearly aware of the potential for nurses to abuse their patients based on the earlier Stice case. Photographs taken by Lambros were dated as early as 2016, he added. However, Rathod said, even having cameras in every room and being aware of the risk did not protect patients since Lambros began working at St. Mary's in 2012. A representative for St. Mary's told Insider the cameras are used for telehealth services, not surveillance. "Experts are telling us, and it makes common sense, that people like RN Lambros don't start off videotaping," Rathod told Insider. "They start off peeping, they then move from peeping to touching over the clothes, to touching under their clothes, to videotaping, and so forth." He added: "None of our clients went to Nurse Lambros for medical treatment the way you might go to your primary care physician and you pick that doctor. They went to St Mary's for medical treatment and St. Mary's put RN Lambros in the room with the victims -- and they're the ones who allowed this to happen at least going back to 2016." Intermountain Healthcare, the Utah-based nonprofit named in the lawsuit which operates St. Mary's Medical Center and other medical facilities, said in a statement emailed to Insider that "immediately following" the accusations against Lambros, the hospital placed him on leave and reported the accusations to law enforcement. "What this former nurse is accused of is reprehensible and goes against everything we believe and value at St. Mary's Medical Center," Bryan Johnson, president of St. Mary's Medical Center, said in the statement emailed to Insider, adding that the hospital is cooperating with law enforcement to support the ongoing investigation. Correction: December 29, 2022: An earlier version of this story misstated Stice's role. He was a patient visitor, not a nurse. The article has also been updated to include a comment from a St. Mary's representative that the cameras in patient rooms are used for telehealth services, not surveillance. The representative also spoke on behalf of Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, which is named as a defendant in the suit and was merged with Intermountain Healthcare in April 2022. [GN] STARBUCKS CORP: Deceptively Advertised Sprouted Bagel, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg News reports that Starbucks Corp. intentionally and recklessly misled customers about its sprouted grain bagel despite its primary ingredient being traditional, non-sprouted grains, a new class action says. Two customers, one from New York and one from California, sued the coffee company for allegedly violating state business and false advertising laws in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Sprouted grains are more premium and desirable than traditional non-sprouted grains because they have more health benefits than pressed white flour, including more protein and fiber and less carbs, according to the complaint.[GN] SUPER MICRO: $18.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Super Micro Computer, Inc. Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION LOGAN HESSEFORT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants. Lead Case No. 4:18-cv-00838-JST CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC. ("SUPER MICRO") COMMON STOCK FROM AUGUST 5, 2016 THROUGH JANUARY 30, 2018, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only and that a Settlement has been proposed for $18,250,000.00 in cash. A hearing will be held on March 2, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, via Zoom at the link available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/tigar-jon-s-jst/, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (3) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, should be approved. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: Super Micro Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 6181, Novato, CA 94948-6181; 1-888-859-1906. You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice and Proof of Claim Form at www.SuperMicroSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail postmarked no later than February 27, 2023, or submit it online by that date. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein). To exclude yourself from the Class, you must mail a written request for exclusion so that it is received by February 9, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you submit a written request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court no later than February 9, 2023. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the following address or by calling 1-800-449-4900: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART, ESQ. 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com DATED: November 8, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION SYSCO ATLANTA: Madison Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JERRAL MADISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYSCO ATLANTA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04856-SDG (N.D. Ga., December 8, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately March 2022 to June 2022 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt warehouse worker performing duties as order selector. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated warehouse workers were required by the Defendant to perform work after clocking out at the end of their shifts. Although they were classified as non-exempt employees, the Defendant's policy and practice of requiring them to perform duties after clocking out resulted to improper payment for all time worked. In addition, the Defendant failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in their regular rates of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime premium compensation. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated warehouse workers were not properly paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the Defendant, for himself and all other similarly situated warehouse workers, including all unpaid wages and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff also seeks an incentive award for serving as a representative of the FLSA Collective; reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs connected with this action pursuant to the FLSA; judgment for any and all civil penalties, and other relief as the Court may deem necessary, just and proper. Sysco Atlanta, LLC is a Subsidiary of Sysco Corporation, the global leader in selling, marketing, and distributing food products, equipment, and supplies to foodservice and hospitality customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Orlando, Esq. THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C. 315 West Ponce De Leon Ave, Suite 400 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: (973) 898-0404 E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Eric Sands, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com Eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Trims Claims in Amitiza Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 21-11057-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows in part and denies in part Takeda's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs FWK Holdings, LLC, Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., bring this antitrust class action against Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Takeda) for alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Takeda moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim warranting relief. In 1986, Dr. Ryuji Ueno identified the therapeutic potential of prostones, a type of chemical derived from prostaglandins, lipid-based compounds that naturally occur in the human body. Ten years later, he founded Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to develop and market prostone-based drugs. In 1999, Sucampo submitted to the FDA an Investigational New Drug for lubiprostone, the active pharmaceutical compound in Amitiza(R). By the fall of 2004, Sucampo began looking for a partner to boost the effort to commercialize lubiprostone. In October, it entered a marketing agreement with Takeda (the 2004 Takeda-Sucampo Agreement). The agreement gave Takeda a 16-year exclusive license to "co-develop, use, sell, promote, offer for sale, import, and distribute" lubiprostone-based products in the United States in exchange for a negotiated price and, depending on annual net sales, an 18-26% royalty. It also gave Takeda the right to participate in any patent infringement litigation brought by Sucampo, or to commence patent infringement litigation against generic competitors if Sucampo did not do so. With Takeda's assistance, Sucampo submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) for Amitiza on March 31, 2005. Although only Sucampo's name was listed on the NDA, Takeda was integral to all Amitiza-related business and legal decisions and discussed "every step" of the NDA approval process with Sucampo. The FDA approved Amitiza for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation on January 31, 2006,2 and Takeda began selling the drug in the United States in April of 2006. In February of 2010, Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a predecessor to Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (collectively, Par), submitted an ANDA to the FDA, seeking approval to market a generic version of Amitiza. After some backand-forth regarding bioequivalence and additional clinical studies, the FDA accepted Par's ANDA in June of 2012. On Dec. 26, 2012, Par presented Sucampo with a paragraph IV certification. Takeda and Sucampo responded by filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, triggering the 30-month stay of any FDA approval of Par's ANDA until July 2, 2015. The parties eventually settled the dispute in September of 2014. Under the terms of the 2014 Settlement Agreement, Par agreed to delay launching a generic version of Takeda's Amitiza until Jan. 1, 2021, at which point it could sell either its own generic product or Sucampo-supplied AG product. Takeda and Sucampo, in turn, agreed to keep other generics out of the market for as long as they possibly could, and to structure the royalty for sales of the Par generic in such a way that, according to plaintiffs, would effectively ensure that there would only be a single generic available in the market. Although Sucampo and Takeda nominally retained the right to launch a competing AG product, the 2014 Settlement Agreement provided for the royalty on sales of the Par generic to decrease so significantly (from 50% to 15%) that Sucampo had no incentive to sell an AG through Takeda. Par began sales of its generic product on Jan. 4, 2021. It elected the option of selling Sucampo-supplied AG product as opposed to its own generic, which was still waiting FDA approval. The Plaintiffs are purchasers and assignees of purchasers of Amitiza-branded and AG products. They contend that, but for the 2014 Settlement Agreement, there would have been at least two generics in the market as early as July 17, 2015, Par's ANDA product and Takeda's authorized generic, with [another] generic entry likely to follow. They filed the instant class action lawsuit seeking to recover the amount they allegedly overpaid for Amitiza-branded and AG products because of the 2014 Settlement Agreement. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (CAC) sets out a single count for alleged unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Takeda first challenges whether the Plaintiffs have standing to bring this lawsuit. It argues that the claimed antitrust injury "is based solely on speculation" that the FDA "would have approved the Par ANDA on July 17, 2015" had the 2014 Settlement Agreement not intervened, an "implausible" hypothesis given the fact that the FDA did not approve the Par ANDA until after Jan. 1, 2021. . Judge Stearns declines to dismiss on standing grounds. He says the Plaintiffs' allegations suffice to create a factual inference of a link between the FDA's delay in approving the Par ANDA and the 2014 Settlement Agreement sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Takeda next argues that dismissal is warranted because the Plaintiffs' claim is based solely on their assertion that the 2014 Settlement Agreement's royalty structure created economic disincentives that made it less profitable to launch an AG, and under the 2014 Settlement Agreement, Sucampo -- and not Takeda -- is contractually owed royalty payments. At heart, the Plaintiffs contend that Takeda paid Par substantial consideration in exchange for Par's agreement to delay bringing its generic version of Amitiza to the market. Judge Stearns declines to dismiss on this ground as well. That Takeda did not itself receive any royalty payments does not mean it did not benefit from the 2014 Settlement Agreement or knowingly participate in the alleged implicit reverse payment to Par in order to obtain that benefit. Takeda next moves to dismiss on the grounds that the 2014 Settlement Agreement is not a reverse payment agreement because it "provides only for payment from Par, an alleged infringer, to Sucampo, the patentee." Again, Takeda misconstrues the nature of the claim against it, Judge Stearns holds. He says the "reverse payment" in this schema is the alleged large and unjustified profits Par received from its monopoly in the generic market and discounted royalty fees. He is not prepared to say, at this early stage in the litigation, that these alleged profits do not qualify as a reverse payment within the scope of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. A dismissal would be premature and potentially unfounded. Lastly, Takeda invokes Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing to recover any damages tied to the sale of Par's AG product. Judge Stearns finds that Takeda stands on firmer ground here. Because the Plaintiffs have dismissed their claims against Par, the selling member of the alleged antitrust conspiracy is no longer a defendant in the action, thereby eliminating Illinois Brick standing. He accordingly allows so much of Takeda's motion as is premised on generic sales. Takeda alternatively moves to strike any allegations in the CAC related to Sucampo's 2015 citizen petition filing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Judge Stearns denies the motion. Motions to strike are generally disfavored, and he is not prepared at this juncture to say that the challenged allegations are immaterial to any conspiracy or anticompetitive intent Sucampo and Takeda may have had during the relevant time period. For the foregoing reasons, Takeda's Motion to Dismiss is denied in part and allowed in part. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fckcaza from Leagle.com. THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS: Class Settlement Final Hearing Set Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that thyssenkrupp Materials agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to protect consumer information in a 2020 data breach. The settlement benefits people who received a notice of data breach from thyssenkrupp Materials in January 2021 or May 2021. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused thyssenkrupp of failing to protect their information in a 2020 data breach. According to consumers, the data breach could have been prevented through reasonable cyber security measures. In late 2020, thyssenkrupp was the victim of a ransomware cyber attack which compromised the information of current and former employees. Sensitive data such as Social Security numbers and bank account information was reportedly accessed in the attack. thyssenkrupp hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can receive compensation for ordinary losses, lost time and/or ordinary expenses. The settlement allows consumers to claim up to $200 in ordinary losses. Class Members can also receive six hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour, for a maximum lost time payment of $150. Consumers who experienced extraordinary losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $8,000 for these expenses. All Class Members can receive two years of TransUnion's myTrueIdentity credit monitoring and identity theft protection. This service includes $1 million in identity theft insurance along with various other monitoring and protections. Class Members who signed up for two years of myTrueIdentity through thyssenkrupp's original offer will receive a one year extension to their services. Class Members who did not participate in the company's original offer will receive two years of the service. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 23, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 27, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, Class Members must submit a valid claim form by March 8, 2023. Who's Eligible People who received a notice of data breach from thyssenkrupp Materials in January 2021 or May 2021. Potential Award $200 for ordinary losses, $150 for lost time and/or $8,000 for extraordinary losses. Proof of Purchase Documentation for out of pocket losses or lost time. 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 03/08/2023 Case Name Crawford, et al. v. thyssenkrup Materials NA, et al., Case No. 2122-CC00411, in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for the State of Missouri Final Hearing 02/27/2023 Settlement Website CrawfordClassAction.com Claims Administrator Crawford v. thyssenkrupp Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 6929 Portland, OR 97228-6929 info@CrawfordClassAction.com 877-750-0348 Class Counsel BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC CAREY DANIS & LOWE COHEN & MALAD LLP MUCHNICK HABER MARGOLIS LC Defense Counsel GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP [GN] TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Tabacco at lawstreetmedia.com reports that an Illinois resident has sued Tribune Publishing Company for allegedly making illegal telemarketing calls pushing the purchase of subscriptions to its newspapers. According to the plaintiff, the calls continued despite his enrollment on the nation's do-not-call registry and his instructions to stop calling. The complaint charges the Chicago, Illinois-headquartered media company that publishes numerous newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, with willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) based on the plaintiff's experience. In particular, the filing says that even after the plaintiff explained that his live-in mother whom Tribune was trying to reach had passed away, and in turn, there would be no renewal of her Tribune subscription, the calls to his landline continued. In addition, despite being told that he had been put on the company's internal do-not-call list, the calls persisted. By way of example, the complaint points to five consecutive days in September 2022 where a live company representative called him once or twice a day. The plaintiff asserts, on information and belief, that "Tribune keeps track of its contacts with consumers, knew when it made these calls that Plaintiff's number was on the National Do Not Call Registry, and knew that Plaintiff was not a customer of Tribune when it made these calls to him and had not made an inquiry regarding Tribune goods or services for more than three months." Furthermore, the complaint claims Tribune is aware that its practices have previously been flagged as illegal as it paid $1.7 million to settle an earlier TCPA class lawsuit over similar do-not-call contentions. The plaintiff asserts that Tribune's pestering conduct violates the TCPA's robocall, Internal Do Not Call, and Do Not Call Registry provisions. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief for the plaintiff and classes of other similarly situated persons. The plaintiff is represented by Burke Law Offices LLC and SmithMarco P.C. The suit was filed just before the Federal Communications Commission proposed a record-breaking nearly $300 million fine against an auto warranty scam robocall campaign, the largest robocall operation the agency has ever investigated. [GN] TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Trump Organization, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Trump Organization, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07895 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Trump Organization -- https://www.trump.com/ -- is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner. Around 250 of these entities use the Trump name.[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 TUFENKIAN IMPORT-EXPORT: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tufenkian Import-Export Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tufenkian Import-Export Ventures, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07897 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tufenkian Import-Export Ventures, Inc. -- https://www.tufenkian.com/ -- designs and manufactures textile products . The Company offers rugs and carpets.[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 TWITTER INC: Lawyers Seek to Move Proposed Class Action to Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------- Meghann Cuniff at lawandcrime.com reports that lawyers for Twitter are asking a judge to transfer a lawsuit over mass layoffs at the company from San Francisco federal court to the District of Delaware, arguing it's the proper venue based on the contract over which the ex-employees are suing. The motion filed asks in the alternative for the lawsuit to be dismissed for being filed in an improper venue, which would allow the plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit elsewhere. It's the latest move in litigation surrounding the mass layoffs that rocked Twitter in the wake of Elon Musk's ownership, with eight ex-employees suing in a proposed class action that argues the company violated federal and state laws that require 60 days notice before closures or mass layoffs. U.S. District Judge James Donato on Dec. 15 ordered Twitter to tell all terminated employees about the lawsuit, which seeks to certify a class of plaintiffs far beyond the eight named in the complaint. Donato called the lawsuit "a textbook scenario for providing notice of a pending class action lawsuit." Twitter, meanwhile, has a pending motion to force the plaintiffs to have their claims decided through an individual arbitration process instead of a group action, as well as to strike the class allegations. According to the venue transfer motion, the agreement at issue "contains an express forum-selection provision that clearly states the exclusive venue for any legal proceedings "aris[ing] out of or relating to" the Merger Agreement lies in the state or federal courts of the State of Delaware." "In their haste to file this lawsuit and allege a purported right to enforce the Merger Agreement and alleged promises based thereon, Plaintiffs ignored a key term in the Merger Agreement: the exclusive venue and forum-selection provision, which expressly mandates that any actions relating to the Merger Agreement proceed only in the federal or state courts of Delaware," according to the motion. "Plaintiffs cannot 'pick and choose' which provisions of the Merger Agreement they want to enforce and which they want to ignore; rather, if they claim the ability to enforce one of its terms, then in equal measure they must comply with and be bound by its other terms." The motion also seeks to dismiss claims brought under California law, arguing they are not properly stated. Twitter's motion to compel arbitration is scheduled to be heard on Jan. 12. The new motion says they "cannot dispute" that their contract claims are based on the agreement that Twitter says expressly makes Delaware the proper venue. "Plaintiffs cannot establish that the forum-selection clause resulted from fraud or overreach," according to the motion. "The Merger Agreement was negotiated and drafted by highly-sophisticated parties and their counsel as part of an arm's-length transaction." Moving the case across the country doesn't "deprive the plaintiffs of their day in court" because "travel alone is insufficient to meet this heavy burden." Also, one of the plaintiffs, Miguel Barreto, lives in New York, which the motion notes is closer to Delaware than it is California. Plaintiffs Emily Kim and Brett Folkins live in Seattle, already 800 miles from the current court, so "litigating in San Francisco is not more convenient for them than in Delaware." The other plaintiffs are Emmanuel Cornet, Justine De Caires, Grae Kindel, Alexis Camacho and Jessica Pan. "Plaintiffs' counsel maintains her primary office in Boston, Massachusetts, which is closer to Delaware than California. "Also, transferring this action to the District Court of Delaware will not require substantially more time investment from Plaintiffs themselves," according to the motion. "Plaintiffs seek to prosecute claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class, so litigating these claims in Delaware will have no greater inconvenience to putative class members than litigating in California." None of the plaintiffs have proper legal standing to pursue claims under California law, and with Twitter being a Delaware corporation, plaintiffs "cannot show that California has a greater interest in the lawsuit than Delaware," Twitter argues. Twitter is represented by attorneys at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. Plaintiffs lawyers at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., based in Boston, could not be reached for comment. They have until Jan. 6 to respond to the motion, with Twitter's optional reply due by Jan. 13. A hearing is scheduled Feb. 23 in San Francisco. [GN] UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH: Colleton Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lisa Colleton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE, INC, Case No. 2285CV01293D was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Worcester, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 28, 2022, and assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-40154. The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to challenge UMass Memorial's routine on-line practices as "a surreptitious disclosure of medical information," "an outrageous invasion of privacy," and illegal wiretapping. UMass Memorial (together with its affiliates) operates websites, including www.ummhealth.org (the "website" at issue), that provide information to the public about UMass Memorial and access to medical records through an Epic myChart patient portal. The Plaintiff is a UMass Memorial "patient, enrollee, or subscriber" who "has used Defendant's website on numerous occasions to search for medical information, services and physicians, and to pay for medical services." The Plaintiff alleges that the Facebook or Meta Pixel, allegedly used on the UMass Memorial website, "tracks the actions of Website users, such as the information they input on the Website, the pages they view, the physicians they view, the physicians they contact, the appointments they schedule, and the locations of those physicians/appointments." The Plaintiff further alleges that "when someone uses the Website, the user's FID (Facebook ID) and these communications about their medical information are simultaneously sent to Facebook via Facebook Pixel."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William P. Doyle, III, Esq. COLONNA & DOYLE AND SIMEOLA 26 Main Street, 3rd Floor Lynnfield, MA 01940 Email: bill@colonna-doyle.com - and - Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Lance Spitzig, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Email: NCoulson@LSCCounsel.com LSpitzig@LSCCounsel.com The Defendant is represented by: James H. Rollinson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Street, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44116 Phone: (216) 621-0200 Fax: (216) 626-0740 Email: jrollinson@bakerlaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202-2662 Phone: (303) 764-4013 Fax: (303) 861-7805 Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Washington Square, Suite 1100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5304 Phone: (202) 861-1500 Fax: (202) 861-1783 Email: escully@bakerlaw.com UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS: Reuveni Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Feyder Reuveni, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS, LLC, ESSEX HOSPITALITY, LLC, d/b/a DHAMAKA RESTAURANT, MASALAWALAPS, LLC, d/b/a MASALAWALA RESTAURANT, THOMSON HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a ADDAINDIAN CANTEEN, TAPESTRY MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a SEMMA SOUTHERN INDIAN, DEBABRATA RONI MAZUMDAR and CHINTAN PANDYA, Case No. 1:22-cv-10930 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum wage, overtime compensation, and illegal retention of tips. The Defendants paid Plaintiff pursuant to the New York food service workers minimum wage. This amount was at all times less than the full New York minimum wage. The Defendants were not entitled to use state tip credits to pay Plaintiff less than the minimum wage, because they did not give Plaintiff proper notice of the tip credit, and they regularly required Plaintiff more than 2 hours per day or 20% of his workday performing non tipped work. The Defendants did not give Plaintiff proper notices of his rate of pay, as required by NYLL. The Plaintiff also received separate paystubs from Dhamaka and Masalawala so that his actual hours were not computed above 40, even when he actually worked more than 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff was thus cheated out of his overtime pay. The Defendants knew that nonpayment of minimum wage/overtime and improperly forcing and/or the Plaintiffs to share their tips with management would economically injure the Plaintiffs and violated federal and state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server at Dhamaka and Masalawala from August 2022 to December 2022. UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS, LLC, is a New York limited liability company that owns Semma, Adda, Masalawala and Dhamaka and operates as their umbrella company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Barnette Suit Transferred in D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Billie Barnette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Defendant; Yvonne Barnes, Patricia Dean, Antonio Morris, Bernadette Bogdanovs, Intervenors; Case No. 3:22-cv-01236 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on Dec. 27, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01649 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Fraud. Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unileverusa.com/ -- manufactures personal care products. The Company offers, laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.[BN] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Aventus Health Sues Over Unreimbursed Services ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aventus Health, LLC; ABL Medical Care, LLC; RD Health Diagnostics, LLC; KD Medical Choice, LLC; and Sean M. Bygrave, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE, INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC. and NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH PARTNERSHIP, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-02408 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought against Defendants under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ("FFCRA"), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to reimburse Aventus and the Laboratories for providing covered COVID testing services. Despite reported profits of $15.4 billion in 2020, Defendants are purposely failing to meet their obligations to cover COVID testing. Indeed, while businesses across the country continue to grapple with economic loss in the face of a global pandemic, United reported an almost 12% increase in profits to $17.3 billion in 2021. At issue in this dispute is Defendants' failure to pay over 34,000 "clean" OOC claims for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, including Rapid, PCR, COVID-19 Variant and Antibody tests, that Plaintiffs provided and continue to provide to Defendants' members and beneficiaries. In addition to failing to reimburse Aventus and the Laboratories for providing covered COVID testing services, Defendants have acted, and continue to act, in bad faith by erecting hurdles to payment without justification. These actions have included setting up complex processes and procedures to deny or underpay claims for arbitrary reasons, engaging in a paperwork war of attrition in an effort to wear down Aventus and the Laboratories, turning United's internal administrative appeals procedures into a joke and thereby rendering the administrative appeals process functionally meritless, and ultimately engaging in unscrupulous and fraudulent conduct for its own financial benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic, says the complaint. The Plaintiff ABL is a Florida-based independent medical laboratory that offers an array of diagnostic services. The Defendants are in the business of issuing group and individual health insurance coverage and administering private employment-based group health plans and non-federal governmental plans, such as plans sponsored by states and local governments, for their insureds, plan members, and beneficiaries within the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven W. Teppler, Esq. MANDELBAUM BARRETT P.C. 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 646.946.5659 Email: steppler@mblawfirm.com - and - Steven I. Adler, Esq. 3 Becker Farm Rd., Suite 105 Roseland, NJ 07086 Phone 973.736.4600 Email: sadler@mblawfirm.com UNIVERSAL POOL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Pool Co., Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Universal Pool Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10892 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Universal Pool Co., Inc. swimming pool contractor in South Holland, Illinois.[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 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Appeals Court Declines to Rehear COVID Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ wcjb.com reports that the full 1st District Court of Appeal refused to hear arguments in a potential class-action lawsuit contending that the University of Florida should return fees to students because of a campus shutdown early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Attorneys for graduate student Anthony Rojas asked the full appeals court to hold what is known as "en banc" hearing after a divided three-judge panel ruled in November that an Alachua County circuit judge should have dismissed the lawsuit. An online docket said that the en banc request had been denied but did not provide more details. The case sought refunds of fees paid for transportation, health-care and athletics services that were not provided because of the shutdown. Rojas alleged that UF breached a contract when it did not provide the services. But in the appellate panel's 2-1 decision on Nov. 22, Judge Rachel Nordby wrote that "assorted documents attached to the complaint do not constitute an express written contract." Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against colleges and universities in Florida and other parts of the country. [GN] US STEEL: $40MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 20 -------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re U. S. Steel Consolidated Cases Civil Action No. 17-579 Judge Cathy Bissoon SUMMARY Notice of Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses TO: All Persons or entities that during the period from January 27, 2016, through April 25, 2017, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired United States Steel Corporation ("U. S. Steel") common stock or options, and were injured thereby (the "Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (THE "COURT"). PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, U. S. STEEL, OR ANY OTHER DEFENDANT, OR THEIR COUNSEL, REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BELOW. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the Settlement Class in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified for the purposes of the proposed Settlement only. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff Christakis Vrakas and Plaintiff Leeann Reed ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class, and the U. S. Steel Defendants have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $40 million in cash (the "Settlement Amount"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). A hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") will be held before the Honorable Cathy Bissoon, United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, either via telephonic or video conference, or in Courtroom 3A, 3rd Floor, Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 at 2:15 p.m. on March 20, 2023, to, among other things, determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the U. S. Steel Defendants, as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation"), dated May 20, 2022; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Fund, and any interest earned thereon, less Taxes, Notice and Administration Costs, Litigation Expenses awarded by the Court, attorneys' fees awarded by the Court, any award to pay the costs and expenses of Plaintiffs awarded by the Court, and any other costs, expenses, or amounts as may be approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (v) the application for an award to pay the costs and expenses of Plaintiffs should be approved.1 The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Final Approval Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received (i) the printed Notice of Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses ("Notice"), or (ii) the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you can obtain a copy of those documents on the website www.ussteellitigation.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re U. S. Steel Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 877-868-2084 info@ussteellitigation.com Please refer to the website for more detailed information and to review the Settlement documents. Inquiries other than requests for information about the status of a claim may also be made to Lead Counsel: Shannon L. Hopkins Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a valid Claim Form, which can be found on the website listed above, postmarked or submitted via www.ussteellitigation.com no later than March 1, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a Settlement Class Member, have not previously requested exclusion in connection with the Class Notice, and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, postmarked no later than February 20, 2023. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class member and do not timely exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses must be submitted to the Court in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, including by filing with the Court no later than February 20, 2023, and postmarked or emailed to the Settling Parties' counsel no later than February 20, 2023. DATED: NOVEMBER 9, 2022 THE HONORABLE CATHY BISSOON United States District Court Judge, United States District Court for The Western District of Pennsylvania 1 The Notice and the Stipulation, available for download at www.ussteellitigation.com, contain additional information concerning the Settlement and the definitions, and further explanation, of the defined terms used in this Notice (which are indicated by initial capital letters). USA TODAY: Underpays Site Editors, Mathews Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ELIZABETH (LIZ) MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA TODAY SPORTS MEDIA GROUP, LLC and GANNETT CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01407 (E.D. Va., December 8, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking all available relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Site Editor from approximately January 2017 through approximately August 2021. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours per week. However, the Defendant compensated her far less than the applicable minimum wage required by the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance. Moreover, the Plaintiff was not paid an overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for her hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime gap time wages and overtime wages, and prejudgment interest, as well as liquidated damages and penalties, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. USA Today Sports Media Group, LLC provides the latest sports news, scores, schedules, stats, odds and more for the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, college sports and more. Gannett Co., Inc. is the owner of USA Today. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com VILLAGE OF OSSINING: Diaz Restaurant Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Village of Ossining, et al. The case is styled as Diaz Restaurant, Inc. doing business as: Atlantic Bar Carlos Diaz, Sirenita Lounge Inc., Amauris Collado Martinez, El Manabita Sports Restaurant, Inc. doing business as: El Manabita, Aracelis Gonzalez, La Isla Del Tesoro Bar Restaurant, Inc., Laura M. Alvarracin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Village of Ossining, Village of Ossining Police Department, Chief of Police Kevin Sylvester, Lieutenant Brendan Donohue, John Does 1-10, (the name "John Doe" being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), in their individual and in their official capacities as Village of Ossining Police Officers, Case No. 7:22-cv-10920-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Ossining -- https://www.villageofossining.org/ -- is a village in Westchester County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis F. Chisari, Esq. MARCOTE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 108 New South Road Hicksville, NY 11801 Phone: (516) 280-2281 Fax: (516) 280-2283 Email: lchisari@marcotelaw.com WELCOME SACRAMENTO: Ervin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Welcome Sacramento, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Danielle Ervin, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Welcome Sacramento, LLC, Welcome Group, Inc., Welcome Group Management, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00332108-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Welcome Group, LLC -- https://welcomegroup.com/ -- is a Houston-based single-tenant industrial owner, and development firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Mauro, Esq. THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC 790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9 Pasadena, CA 91101-2193 Phone: 626-698-0048 Fax: 626-698-0049 Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net WELLA OPERATIONS: White Sues Over Benzene Contaminated Products --------------------------------------------------------------- David White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLA OPERATIONS US LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-09339-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought on behalf of other consumers who purchased the Defendant's dry shampoo products which contained benzene but was not disclosed by the Defendants and was not listed as an ingredient. Benzene is a dangerous, toxic chemical. It is "highly toxic to humans, which means it can harm you if you swallow it, touch it, or breathe it in." Benzene exposure can harm the immune system, lead to anemia, damage nerves, and cause nervous system problems. None of Defendant's products list benzene as an ingredient. Yet, independent laboratory testing shows that some of its products do in fact contain benzene. Moreover, the amount of benzene released by the Defendant's products can substantially exceed 2 ppm—a regular exposure level that "clearly increases the risk of cancer." Moreover, there is no reason for these products to contain benzene. They can, and are, manufactured without benzene by Defendant's competitors. In addition, these products are cosmetics, which are not designed to contain benzene. Thus, no amount of benzene is acceptable in these products. The presence of benzene in the products makes them adulterated and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both federal and state law. The product did not list benzene as an ingredient. Plaintiff trusted the accuracy of the labels, and understood that the product was properly manufactured, free from defects, safe for its intended use, not adulterated or misbranded, and legal to sell. But the product was contaminated with benzene, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's haircare product. Wella Operations US LLC makes, sells, and markets beauty and haircare products, including the Sebastian Professional brand of dry shampoo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com WELLS FARGO: Jan. 26 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement regarding the Wells Fargo Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURPLE MOUNTAIN TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:18-cv-03948-JD CLASS ACTION PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION To all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of Wells Fargo & Co. ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") during the period from November 3, 2016 through August 3, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). You could be affected by a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo and Individual Defendant Timothy Sloan (collectively "Defendants"). The Court, which authorized this notice, is allowing the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of a "Class" and appointed attorneys as "Class Counsel." The Court has not decided that Defendants did anything wrong. Defendants have not been ordered to pay any money. No settlement has been reached. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. What is this case about? The lawsuit alleges Defendants knowingly concealed and made false statements about the Company's Collateral Protection Insurance and Guaranteed Asset Protection insurance products during the Class Period, allegedly in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint further alleges that the omissions and false and misleading statements artificially inflated the price of Wells Fargo's common stock and that, when Defendants disclosed the true facts, Wells Fargo's stock price dropped. Defendants deny any wrongdoing in this lawsuit and believe that the claims are without merit. Are you included? You are a potential "Class Member" only if you purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly-traded common stock of Wells Fargo during the period from November 3, 2016 through August 3, 2017, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Defendants; present or former executive officers of Wells Fargo and their immediate family members. Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that timely and validly requests exclusion from the Class. In addition, Defendants have reserved their rights to move to decertify the Class, in whole or in part, or to seek the exclusion from the Class of certain entities or individuals at a later date. What are your options? If you want to stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything now. If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class and be bound by the Court's orders and will lose any right you may have to sue Defendants regarding the factual circumstances and claims in this case. If you do not want to be a Class Member or to be bound by what the Court does and want to keep any rights you may have to sue Defendants over the factual circumstances and claims asserted in this case, you need to exclude yourself. To be excluded, you must send a letter to Wells Fargo 2018 Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, ATTN: EXCLUSIONS, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, and must include certain information, as set forth in the Long-Form Notice available at the website listed below. If you choose to exclude yourself, you cannot get money or benefits recovered if any are awarded at a later date. The deadline to exclude yourself is January 26, 2023. Where to get more information? This notice is only a summary. For more information, visit www.WellsFargo2018SecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-888-416-6687. WHITE MOUNTAIN PUZZLES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Mountain Puzzles, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. White Mountain Puzzles, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10894 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. White Mountain Puzzles -- https://www.whitemountainpuzzles.com/ -- has offered the best jigsaw puzzles for adults, kids and families.[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 WORLD SPA ENTERTAINMENT: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Spa Entertainment LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. World Spa Entertainment LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07865 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. World Spa -- https://worldspa.com/ -- is the first of its kind, offering a global, authentic, and unmatched spa experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com YOTI (USA) INC: O.C. Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as O.C., a minor, by and through her Guardian ALLISON PAPE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. YOTI (USA) INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2022 L 000139 was removed from the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 28, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-03105. The Plaintiff purports to state a claim against Yoti under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory and other damages associated with the alleged violations of BIPA by Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that Yoti disregarded these alleged obligations and instead unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric identifiers and information, without ever receiving the individuals' informed written consent in required by BIPA.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas M. Wolf, Esq. Cameron T. Liljestrand, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 550 West Adams Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: (312) 345-1718 Fax: (312) 345-1778 Email: Thomas.Wolf@lewisbrisbois.com Cameron.Liljestrand@lewisbrisbois.com [*] Data Breach Class Actions Impact U.S. Healthcare Organizations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for Bank Info Security, reports that the prospect of class action lawsuits being filed in the aftermath of a major data breach often has more impact on breached healthcare organizations than the potential for fines and enforcement actions by government regulators, says attorney Jeff Westerman of Westerman Law Corp. With all the legal expenses and time involved with organizations defending themselves in data breach class action lawsuits, "I don't know that a civil enforcement action would be much more impactful than the private civil litigation that gets filed," Westerman says in a video interview with Information Security Media Group. While "the regulators or the government can all bring all kinds of resources to bear," very few enforcement cases are pursued, says Westerman, who represented plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against UCLA Health in 2015 after a cyberattack affected the sensitive health information of 4.5 million individuals. That consolidated class action lawsuit was settled in 2019. As part of the settlement, UCLA Health agreed to spend up to $5.5 million on improving its data security (see: Analyzing the $7.5 Million UCLA Health Data Breach Settlement). All in all, when an organization has a major data breach, much is at stake, including reputational damage. "I would think that where you have your customer base or client base, your medical patient base, you would want to convey that you care about their data and that you're taking care of their data," Westerman says. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. 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 ***