/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231218.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, December 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 252
Headlines
3M CO: Manitowoc Opts to Stay in PFAS Class Action Lawsuit
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: County Workers' Fund Hits SEC Disclosures
ADECCO USA: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
ADIDAS AMERICA: Parties Must File Status Report by Feb. 15, 2024
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissed Securities Suit Under Appeal
ATHENA COSMETICS: Rush Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Beauty Products
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Group Makes Settlement Counter Offer
AUSTRALIA: NFF Lauds Live Cattle Export Settlement Counter Offer
BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Alleges Labor Law Breaches
BENSON INDUSTRIES: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BERGER BROS: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BLOOM ENERGY: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 18
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Potential Elevance Sale
BLUE RIDGE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
CITIBANK NA: Gaboyan et al. Allege National Origin Discrimination
CLEARVIEW AI: Agrees to Settle Illinois BIPA Class Action
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New York
COMERICA INC: Bragar Eagel Probes Breach of Fiduciary Duties
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Troutman Pepper Discusses FDCPA Suit Ruling
CREDIT BUREAU: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due June 14, 2024
EHANG HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 2
EXPENSIFY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 29
FORD MOTOR: Burke Sues Over Defective SUVs' Camera System
GREAT LAKES: February 23 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Investors Seek $4.5MM Settlement Approval
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Mohammad Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE: Heinz Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
JCPENNEY OPCO LLC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
KFC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Allowed to File Documents Under Seal
KROGER CO: Parents Renew Class Action Over Teething Wafers
LELAND STANFORD: Appeals Court Orders in Hines Suit to 5th Cir.
LENOVO INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Augustine Due April 2, 2024
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Gibbs Files Bid for Default Judgment
LIVEPERSON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 30
LIVEPERSON INC: Damri Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Scheduling Conference Extended to Jan. 25
M/V HARVEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in UPRC Suit
MAJOR ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 1, 2024
ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Must Submit Expert Reports by Jan. 18, 2024
MEDICINE MAN: Fowler FLSA Suit Mediation Set for Feb. 1, 2024
META PLATFORMS: User Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Portions
MGM RESORTS: Albrigo Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
MHM HEALTH: Lewis Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
MICROSOFT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Saeedy Due Jan. 31, 2025
MIDFIRST BANK: Strother Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MIDJOURNEY INC: Artists' Lawyers File Amended Complaint
MILLIMAN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 25, 2024
MISSISSIPPI: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by June 30, 2025
MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: Gardner Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez
MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Gevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 22
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeal in Antitrust Class Action Pending
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Action May Elevate Assisted Living Role
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Must Face Class Action Over Nursing Home Program
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces ERISA Suit Over Employees' Fund Handling
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over SEC Non-disclosure
NEXTERA ENERGY: Sued Over Campaign Law Violations
NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: Houston Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Kawa Orthodontics Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile
OASIS BAKERY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OLD NAVY: Faces Class Action in California Over AI Chatbots
POSTMEDS INC: Autry Files Suit in N.D. California
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Hakemi Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
R L M K INC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RENOVARO BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend Choi Securities Suit
ROBLOX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 26
SECURTEST INC: Judge Tosses FCRA Class Action Settlement
SELENE FINANCE: Dominguez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice
SOUTH BAY GUNITE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Homeowners' Earthquake Class Action Tossed
SPIRIT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Realty Income Sale
STEWART TITLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Biondi Says
T/J INSPECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Farnes Suit Alleges
TARGET CORP: Faces Up & Up Sunscreen False Advertising Lawsuit
VISA INC: Judge Wants Scam Class Suit Settlement Site Be Shut Down
WALT DISNEY: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action
WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Keene Suit Removed to E.D. California
WEST VIRGINIA: Wants Class Action Over Jail Conditions Tossed
WESTERN UNION: Court Tosses Radulescu Class Status Bid
WESTJET AIRLINES: Application to Amend Class Definition Dismissed
WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Suit Over Flex Commissions
WHITE WALKER LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WHITEFIELD: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Trowell
[*] Housing Sector Outlook Expected to Improve in 2024 Amid Suits
*********
3M CO: Manitowoc Opts to Stay in PFAS Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Seehafernews.com reports that the City of Manitowoc has made a
decision about where they stand on the PFAS lawsuits against two
corporations.
The common council voted unanimously last Wednesday (November 29th)
during a special council meeting to stay in the lawsuit, unlike
their Cool City counterparts.
Mayor Justin Nickels says after a discussion with Manitowoc Public
Utilities, who takes care of the city's water, and looking at the
facts of the cases, it made sense for Manitowoc to stay in.
"The city would definitely get a benefit," he clarified. "And the
other benefit that we have is long term down the road no matter
what, we still have Lake Michigan and that clean water where we can
provide clean water to anyone in our area. When were able to
provide water from Lake Michigan, it's much less of a concern."
Nickels says right now, isn't known what the settlement money would
be used for.
Two Rivers City Manager Greg Buckley told Seehafer News that the
city saw too many risks with the lawsuit and decided to opt-out.
Nickels countered with, "Sometimes the more the merrier. It proves
a point that this isn't just a singular issue it's a nationwide
issue with PFAS. So, to us we felt the risk was very minimalized.
If the lawsuit doesn't go our way, what's the harm I guess."
The lawsuits against 3M and Dupont would allow between $10.5
billion to $12 billion to be returned to communities after the
companies both had links to PFAS or forever chemicals that can
affect people's health greatly if ingested in drinking water. [GN]
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acutus Medical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated class
suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.
The Company and certain of its current and former officers have
been named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on February 14, 2022 and March 23, 2022.
On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two actions, appointed
a lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel for the proposed class.
On September 16, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint.
The defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss.
On September 27, 2023, the court granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss in its entirety, but gave plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.
On October 27, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting similar claims.
The Company is defending the action.
Acutus Medical, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets a range of
tools for catheter-based ablation procedures to treat various
arrhythmias including access sheaths, diagnostic and mapping
catheters, ablation catheters, mapping and imaging consoles and
accessories, as well as supporting algorithms and software
programs.
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: County Workers' Fund Hits SEC Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------
AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that on October 24, 2023,
the Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, a purported
shareholder of the company, filed a purported class action
complaint against the company and certain of its current and former
officers, and certain underwriters for a Company follow-on offering
conducted in January 2021 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
It purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the company's stock between August 4, 2020 and February
27, 2023 and generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements
and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the
company's organic growth in its diabetes segment.
AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical equipment,
medical supplies and related services.
ADECCO USA: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry reports that a former employee of The Adecco
Group in San Francisco filed a class action lawsuit against the
staffing firm, claiming it did not pay all final wages within the
required deadline.
The named plaintiff, Elisa Recoder, worked as a driverless support
specialist, according to court records. Her employment was
terminated; she had worked in the role from July 31 through Aug. 24
of this year.
Recoder has still not received her final earned wages, according to
court filings.
The lawsuit seeks to represent all former nonexempt employees of
Adecco in California who were paid wages at any time from Nov. 9,
2020, through the present.
The suit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on Nov. 9.
The case is Elisa Recoder v. Adecco USA Inc., San Francisco
Superior Court, CGC-23-610349. [GN]
ADIDAS AMERICA: Parties Must File Status Report by Feb. 15, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Smith, v. Adidas
America, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00788-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order
as follows:
-- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before
February 15, 2024.
-- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by
November 22, 2023.
-- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by December
29,
2023.
-- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before
October 16, 2024.
Adidas America designs and markets apparel products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RzN9ps at no extra charge.[CC]
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissed Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Array Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that on
August 4, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's dismissal of a consolidated amended complaint.
On September 11, 2023, pursuant to a scheduling request filed by
lead plaintiffs, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ordered lead plaintiffs to file their opening brief in the
Second Circuit Appeal by November 17, 2023.
On December 7, 2021, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Plymouth County Retirement Association and Carpenters Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California against the company and certain
officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933, on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities during the period from October 14, 2020
through May 11, 2021.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges misstatements and/or
omissions in certain of the company's registration statements and
prospectuses related to the company's IPO, its 2020 follow-on
offering, and its 2021 follow-on offering in its Annual Report on
Form 10-K and associated press release announcing results for the
fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2020 and in the company's
November 5, 2020 and March 9, 2021 earnings calls.
On October 17, 2022, the company and other defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The lead
plaintiff filed a motion opposing the motion to dismiss on December
16, 2022, and the company and other defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion to dismiss on January 17, 2023.
On July 5, 2023, the court denied the lead plaintiffs' request for
leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint and dismissed the
Plymouth Action with prejudice.
Array Technologies, Inc. is headquartered in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and manufactures and supplies solar tracking systems and
related products for customers across the United States and
internationally. The company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
ATI Investment Sub, Inc., owns subsidiaries through which it
conducts substantially all operations.
ATHENA COSMETICS: Rush Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Beauty Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Rush, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ATHENA COSMETICS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-08799
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023), is brought arising from the false,
misleading, unfair, and deceptive sale of beauty products without
disclosing dangerous risks and side effects of the products' key
ingredient.
Athena deceptively marketed and sold the Enhancement Serums,
without a prescription, as cosmetics or so-called "serums" (not as
drugs), with no warning of serious side effects or risks. Instead,
Athena touted the safety of the Enhancement Serums.
The Enhancement Serums, however, contain dechloro dihdroxy difluoro
ethylcloprostenolamide ("DDDE"). DDDE is a prostaglandin analog
(PGA), which is in the same class of compounds as the active
ingredient found in prescription drugs that grows eyelashes, like
Latisse--which the FDA has approved for use only under the
supervision of a physician due to the possible adverse effects
associated with its active ingredient.
PGAs such as DDDE improve hair growth, causing eye lashes and
eyebrows to grow longer, darker, and thicker. However, they are
also known to cause serious adverse effects to the eye and the
structure around the eye, including but not limited to blepharitis,
Meibomian Gland Dysfunction, chronic dry eye, redness,
discoloration, pain or irritation, and other serious side effects.
Athena did not disclose the risk of any side effects associated
with its Enhancement Serums and has even affirmatively denied, in
its marketing and labeling materials, that its products contain any
active ingredient or "drug." To the contrary, Athena falsely
implied the Enhancement Serums are effective at improving the
appearance of eyelashes and eyebrows because of the natural
ingredients and "vitamins" contained therein. To the contrary, the
longer hair effect is the result of the active ingredient, DDDE a
"drug" associated with many undisclosed side effects.
Athena continues to deceptively and fraudulently market its
Enhancement Serums as beauty products or "cosmetics," misleadingly
suggesting the Enhancement Serums are merely natural products that
"enhance" appearance only without any effect on the human body
(viz., hair, lash, or brows). This is untrue because the
Enhancement Serums contain an active ingredient known to stimulate
hair, lash, and brow growth, which also carries substantial health
risks that Athena did not and does not disclose.
The Plaintiff is one of many consumers who purchased the
Enhancement Serums without knowing that using the products as
directed by the manufacturer can cause serious side effects, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff, while in New York, purchased RevitaBrow Advanced and
RevitaLash Advanced, among other products.
The Defendant manufactures and sells beauty products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Samberg, Esq.
PETER SAMBERG – ATTORNEY AT LAW
100 Ardsley Ave. West
Ardsley on Hudson, NY 10503
Phone: 914-391-1213
Email: psamberg@gmail.com
- and -
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 267-435-1300
Email: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
- and -
Louiza Tarassova, Esq.
LOU LAW
2180 N Park Ave., Suite 208
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: 407-622-1885
Email: louiza@mylawadvocate.com
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Group Makes Settlement Counter Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fitzgerald, writing for ABC Rural, reports that the
applicants in the long-running class action over Australia's 2011
live export ban have made a counter offer for compensation from the
federal government in an attempt to settle the case more than three
years after a court ruled in their favour.
In 2020, the Federal Court found the former Labor government's
decision to ban live exports to Indonesia was unlawful, with a
group of cattle producers, exporters and service providers
originally seeking $600 million in compensation for lost income.
For the last three years, the group has been negotiating over the
compensation figure, and the government's $215m offer has been
knocked back twice.
The 215-strong class action group has now offered to settle the
case for $510m, plus costs and interest, which, according to the
National Farmers Federation (NFF), could see a settlement of
between $800m to $900m.
"This latest settlement offer is an attempt to bring to an end a
very painful chapter in the history of Australian agriculture that
has done severe and unnecessary damage to producers, their families
and the broader supply chain," NFF chief executive Tony Mahar
said.
"The government's political decision to end live export showed
scant regard for its own departmental advice, and caused widespread
financial damage, family break ups, and even suicide among those
impacted.
"Agriculture Minister Murray Watt needs to accept this offer and
bring this matter to an end, giving farmers and their families
affected the closure that they deserve following the findings of
the Federal Court."
Delay 'strategy' criticised
A spokesperson for federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says "the
delay in resolving this proceeding is not due to any actions by the
Commonwealth".
"The Commonwealth has engaged in a good faith attempt to settle the
claims made by the applicants, including by making an offer of
settlement of $215 million in December 2022," the spokesperson
said.
During the October NFF National Conference, Mr Watt said his
preference was for the class action settlement to be resolved, but
believed criticism of the government's role in the delays was not
right.
"We made a settlement offer of $215 million worth of taxpayer money
before Christmas last year … and, frankly, I think the claimants
need to have a really good hard talk to their lawyers about the
strategy they're employing," he said.
"I think those lawyers need to get their act together and make sure
they're properly representing their clients who deserve a fair and
decent outcome."
The NFF said the "government has until January 19, 2024, to accept
the offer or face a potentially much more significant payout
allowing the Federal Court to rule on the quantum of damages". [GN]
AUSTRALIA: NFF Lauds Live Cattle Export Settlement Counter Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) has welcomed a counter offer
made to the Commonwealth Government to hopefully close the
long-running class action of those left devastated by the unlawful
closure of the live cattle export trade in 2011.
The applicant in the class action has made an open offer in good
faith to the Commonwealth of $510 million plus costs and interest
to settle the Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for
Agriculture [2020] FCA 732 class action that would be a fair and
equitable end to what the Federal Court has found was malfeasance
by the Gillard Government to destroy the live cattle export trade
in Australia.
The group of 215 parties to the class action include cattle
producers, exporters and independent service providers, such as
veterinarians and musterers, who were completely devastated by the
Commonwealth Government decision to end the live cattle trade
virtually overnight and are still waiting on compensation.
NFF CEO Tony Mahar said it is clear Minister Murray Watt needs to
accept this reasonable offer and allows families to move on from a
traumatic event that has been running for over ten years.
"This latest settlement offer is an attempt to bring to an end a
very painful chapter in the history of Australian agriculture that
has done severe and unnecessary damage to producers, their families
and the broader supply chain.
"The Government's political decision to end live export, showed
scant regard for its own departmental advice, and caused widespread
financial damage, family break ups, and even suicide among those
impacted.
"The rushed decision following a Four Corners story combined with a
premeditated campaign by animal rights activists was found to have
been unlawful, with the Federal Court taking the extraordinary step
of labelling the action 'capricious, irrational and
unreasonable'."
The latest by the applicant proposes compensation of $510 million
plus interest plus cost which would likely see a settlement to
those effected of between $800 million and $900 million.
The Commonwealth Government has until 19 January 2024 to accept the
offer or face a potentially much more significant payout allowing
the Federal Court to rule on the quantum of damages.
Last year the Commonwealth Government offered to settle the case
for $215 million interest and costs included, which was clearly
insubstantial given the findings of the court in terms of breach by
the Commonwealth.
"Agriculture Minister Murray Watt needs to accept this offer and
bring this matter to an end, giving farmers and their families
effected the closure that they deserve following the findings of
the Federal Court," Mr Mahar said.
With the Commonwealth Government currently considering the banning
of the live sheep trade, this case should be a timely reminder to
those in power that capricious decision making around Australian
agriculture can have catastrophic impacts for the lives of
Australian farmers.
"This case and the consequences for the Commonwealth should be a
lesson on how not to operate and we hope they've learned the
lessons from the past in their attempts to ban the live sheep
export trade in Australia. In the last 48 hours the Labor Premier
of Western Australia has called on the Albanese Government to
reverse its decision and the Commonwealth needs to listen," Mr
Mahar said. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Pfeffer, David Dessner, Adam Sherman, Frank Cronin, Roger
Rojas, Jason Auerbach, and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Case No.
3:23-cv-00813 (W.D.N.C., Nov. 30, 2023), is brought to recover the
overtime and minimum wage the Defendants willfully failed to pay
them while they were doing it in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
Like all MLOs, the Plaintiffs sold the Defendants' mortgage and
other loan products on commission. They received no salary,
routinely worked nights, weekends and in excess of 60 hour weeks,
and, with their follow MLOs, generated billions of dollars for the
Defendants.
From at least 2016, the Defendants systematically misclassified the
Plaintiffs and thousands of loan officers across the country as
exempt employees under the FLSA and state labor laws. It then,
apparently on the basis of this misclassification, simply did not
track or pay overtime to the Plaintiffs and thousands of other loan
officers across the country for at least seven years.
The Defendants did, however, knowingly accept and effectively
require tens of hours of overtime work from each of the Plaintiffs
and their thousands of colleagues every regular workweek they were
employed by the Defendants. It has systematically and willfully
violated the FLSA and the labor laws of dozens of states for at
least seven years, likely much longer and through today, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were Mortgage Loan Officers ("MLOs") employed by
Bank of America in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina and
Florida.
The Bank of America Corp is a bank holding company incorporated in
the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Wellman, Esq.
TEAGUE CAMPBELL DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 450
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: 919.719.4734
Facsimile: 919.873.1814
Email: JWellman@teaguecampbell.com
- and -
Barry R. Lax, Esq.
LAX & NEVILLE, LLP
350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4640
New York, NY 10118
Phone: 212-696-1999
Facsimile: 212-566-4531
Email: blax@laxneville.com
BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Alleges Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
BILLYJOE BROWNING, individually and for others similarly situated
v. BASSETT HEALTHCARE NETWORK, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514-LEK-ATB
(N.D.N.Y., December 1, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law and its implementing regulations.
Plaintiff Browning worked for the Bassett an environmental services
tech and, later, a certified nursing assistant, at Bassett Medical
Centerin Cooperstown, New York from approximately January 2023
until March 2023. Throughout her employment, Bassett classified
Browning as non-exempt and paid heron an hourly basis. However,
Bassett subjected Browning to its common practice of automatically
deducting 30 minutes a day from her recorded work time for meal
breaks despite the fact that Browning did not actually receive bona
fide meal breaks. Thus, Bassett uniformly deprives Browning of
overtime wages for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek in
violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Cooperstown, NY, Bassett is a New York non-profit
corporation operates five hospitals and provides care and services
to people living in a rural eight-county region covering 5,600
square miles in upstate New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Iversen, Esq.
E.STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY, LLP
28 Second Street
Troy, NY 12180
Telephone: (518) 274-5820
Facsimile: (518) 274-5875
E-mail: diversen@joneshacker.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
BENSON INDUSTRIES: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benson Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Tyrese Lyons, individually, and on
behalf or all others similarly situated v. Benson Industries, Inc.,
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610746 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Benson Industries, Inc. -- https://www.bensonglobal.com/ --
designs, engineers, supplies, and installs curtain wall external
cladding.[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
BERGER BROS: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berger Bros. Camera
Exchange, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Berger Bros. Camera
Exchange, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-08840 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Berger Bros -- https://www.berger-bros.com/ -- specializes in
Customer Service and a Camera Store selling Digital Cameras,
Lenses, Video, Drones, Binoculars, and Accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BLOOM ENERGY: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
common shares of Bloom Energy Corporation ("Bloom") from July 25,
2018, to March 31, 2020, inclusive:
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 Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for
purposes of the Settlement only on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of
(I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class,
and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness 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 $3,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims asserted
or that could have been asserted in the Action.
A hearing will be held on April 18, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. at the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, United States
Courthouse, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
94612 or via Zoom, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Settling
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 29, 2023, (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or
by other virtual means.
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. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.BloomEnergySettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the
Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
Bloom Energy Settlement, c/o Epiq Global, PO Box 2230 Portland, OR
97208-2230, 1-844-334-1078.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than March
29, 2024. 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 March 18, 2024, 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.
Lead Counsel's motions for i) final approval of the settlement; ii)
attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses; and iii) awards to
plaintiffs are due on February 1, 2024. The motions and supporting
materials will be posted to www.BloomEnergySettlement.com once
filed. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan
of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motions for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and awards to plaintiffs, must be filed
with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Settling
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than March
18, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Settling
Defendants, or their 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.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
Nicholas Porritt, Esq.
1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 542-4290
nporritt@zlk.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Bloom Energy Settlement
c/o Epiq Global
P.O. Box 2230
Portland, OR 97208-2230
844-334-1078
www.BloomEnergySettlement.com
By Order of the Court
URL: www.BloomEnergySettlement.com [GN]
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Potential Elevance Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Riegel, writing for Nola, reports that a lawsuit filed on
Dec. 4 in Baton Rouge state court is seeking to effectively block
the potential sale of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana to
national insurer Elevance Health.
Though the controversial deal is currently on hold, both companies
have said they plan to move forward with the sale in early 2024.
Tut Kinney, an attorney and Blue Cross policyholder, filed the suit
individually but is seeking to certify it as a class action on
behalf of the roughly 92,000 Blue Cross policyholders across the
state.
The suit doesn't name Blue Cross or Elevance but, instead, takes
aim at the Accelerate Louisiana Initiative, a social welfare
foundation that would be funded with some $3.5 billion in sale
proceeds and surplus Blue Cross assets.
Kinney, a Metairie lawyer, argues that policyholders, who have
individually paid thousands of dollars in premiums to Blue Cross
over the years, essentially own Blue Cross, a nonprofit, mutual
indemnity company. They, not a foundation, are therefore entitled
to proceeds from the sale to Elevance, the suit says.
The Accelerate Louisiana Foundation was created in late 2022 by
four members of the Blue Cross board of directors with a mission to
"work to improve the health and lives of the people of Louisiana."
At $3.5 billion, it would dwarf other charitable and social welfare
foundations in the state.
The suit comes two months after Blue Cross tabled its request for
regulatory approval to sell to Elevance amid increased scrutiny
from policyholders, doctors, hospitals, state lawmakers and
Gov.-elect Jeff Landry.
But the company has said it still plans to move forward with the
sale. In the meantime, Landry has formed a committee to advise him
on the deal. His office declined to comment on the committee or the
lawsuit.
Kinney said it is important to file suit now before a new plan to
sell the company is filed with the Louisiana Department of
Insurance, which, along with two-thirds of Blue Cross
policyholders, must approve reorganizing and selling the company
before the deal is finalized.
"It's important to stop Accelerate from being part of a plan that
they have no business being part of," Kinney said. "I want to stop
them from proceeding further with their plan."
Blue Cross did not respond to a request seeking comment.
'Irreparable harm'
Blue Cross announced its plans to sell to Elevance early this year,
arguing that a large national insurer with the latest tools and
technology could offer better coverage and lower prices to the some
1.9 million Louisiana residents that carry some form of Blue Cross
insurance.
The deal called for giving more than 90% of the sale proceeds to
the Accelerate Louisiana Initiative and distributing the rest --
about $300 million -- to the 92,000 policyholders, who would
receive less than $3,300 each.
Blue Cross customers who are not policyholders--employees on a
company-sponsored insurance plan, for instance--would not be
entitled to a piece of the payout.
As policyholders and healthcare providers began looking more
closely into the deal, they began to question why the foundation
was getting the lion's share of sale proceeds and why the
foundation would be controlled by four Blue Cross board members.
They also raised concerns about whether selling a local nonprofit
insurer to a large, publicly-traded company was in the best
interest of a state that has some of the poorest residents with the
worst health outcomes in the country.
Kinney's suit speaks to both sets of concerns. It argues that
Accelerate Louisiana is trying to unlawfully take property that
belongs to policyholders and is interfering with the health
insurance provided by Blue Cross.
The suit also cites two expert reports commissioned earlier this
year by the state to evaluate the deals that question its
fairness.
"Kinney and the class will be harmed by the termination of its
member controlled health insurer and will be harmed by Accelerate
taking its property," the suit said.
No hearings have been set in the case. [GN]
BLUE RIDGE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. (NYSE American: BRBS)
resulting from allegations that Blue Ridge Bankshares may have
issued materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Blue Ridge Bankshares 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=20587 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 October 31, 2023, after market hours, Blue
Ridge Bankshares disclosed that its "audited financial statements
included in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2022, and unaudited interim financial statements
included in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended
March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023 should no longer be relied upon
and will be restated." Further, Blue Ridge Bankshares advised that,
in part, "[t]he effect of the adjustments will result in lower net
income and earnings per share in the year ended December 31,
2022."
On this news, Blue Ridge Bankshares' stock fell by $1.06 per share,
or 33.65%, to close at $2.09 per share on November 1, 2023.
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.
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]
CITIBANK NA: Gaboyan et al. Allege National Origin Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARSEN GABOYAN, an individual; MELANIA GABOYAN, an individual; ADAM
SAPUNJIAN, an individual; GEORGE SAPUNJIAN, an individual; and JACK
SAPUNJIAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A.; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10148 (C.D. Cal.,
December 1, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendants for
national origin discrimination and for violations of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs allege that, between 2015 and 2021, Citibank, N.A.
engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against
customers and/or potential customers based on their Armenian
national origin. Citi applied extra scrutiny to those of Armenian
national origin when they applied for, and/or sought to maintain,
banking services such as credit cards, checking accounts, savings
accounts, lines of credit, increases in credit amounts, etc. This
often resulted in Citi declining these customers' applications for
such services and/or closing financial/credit accounts that were
previously opened and in good standing, despite offering these
services to other similarly situated customers who were not
Armenian, say the Plaintiffs.
Citi is a global bank with assets of over $1 trillion. It provides
a wide variety of financial products and services to its global and
domestic clients, including, among others, credit cards, lines of
credit, and personal and business checking accounts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack Bazerkanian, Esq.
C&B LAW GROUP LLP
2315 W. Burbank Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91506
Telephone: (213) 986-3430
Facsimile: (213) 986-9860
E-mail: jack@cblawgroup.com
- and -
Caleb Liang, Esq.
Kevin B. Kelly, Esq.
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
300 S Grand Ave, Suite 3950
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-8900
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
E-mail: caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com
kevin.kelly@ltlattorneys.com
CLEARVIEW AI: Agrees to Settle Illinois BIPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Conor Healy, writing for IPVM, reports that technology companies
often embrace "move fast and break things," but that can be costly
when you ignore the law.
Case in point, Clearview AI will settle a class action lawsuit in
Illinois over its scraping of billions of photos from social media
without obtaining consent, an alleged violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, according to a recent court
filing. [GN]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Columbia
University failed to protect students' and employees' sensitive
information, leaving it vulnerable to a data breach in May 2023,
according to a class action lawsuit filed Nov. 21 in New York
federal court.
Plaintiff Alexandra Lardis is a Columbia University alumna who says
she was the victim of fraud as a result of the Columbia University
data breach. She says she experienced three fraud attempts in which
a criminal attempted to use her credit card without her knowledge
or consent.
At the time of these fraud attempts, Lardis says she had no idea
that her sensitive data had been compromised in a massive data
breach that reportedly affected nearly 900 colleges.
The Columbia University class action lawsuit points to information
the National Student Clearinghouse submitted to the California
attorney general's office in September 2023 about the hack of a
file-sharing tool called MOVEit, which was utilized by the affected
colleges.
MOVEit reportedly had a security vulnerability that enabled
cybercriminals to gain access to the putative class members'
sensitive information around May 30, 2023.
The information compromised in the Columbia University data breach
reportedly included Social Security numbers, birthdates, financial
information and other sensitive data that could be used by
criminals to perpetrate identity theft.
Columbia University class action claims class members were never
notified about data breach Lardis claims that Columbia University
learned about the data breach shortly after it took place yet
failed to notify students and employees whose sensitive information
may have been compromised.
She argues that Columbia failed to adhere to its own cybersecurity
protections and protocols that were meant to protect sensitive
information that had been entrusted into its custody. Had Columbia
University provided timely notification about the breach, Landis
says she and putative class members could have acted more quickly
to mitigate the damage.
The Columbia University class action lawsuit claims the university
still has not sent out notification letters to inform putative
class members that their sensitive information may have been
compromised in the data breach.
Lardis asserts claims against Columbia University for negligence,
breach of implied contract, breach of express contract and
violations of New York business law.
Earlier this year, a Columbia University class action lawsuit
alleged the university submitted false data to college ranking
services.
Were you affected by the Columbia University data breach? Tell us
about your experience in the comments.
Lardis is represented by Matthew A. Girardi, L. Timothy Fisher and
Jonathan L. Wolloch of Bursor & Fisher PA.
The Columbia University data breach class action lawsuit is
Alexandra Lardis v. Columbia University, Case No.
1:23-cv-10241-ALC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. [GN]
COMERICA INC: Bragar Eagel Probes Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Comerica
Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) on behalf of long-term stockholders
following a class action complaint that was filed against Comerica
on August 21, 2023 with a Class Period from February 9, 2021 to May
29, 2023. Our investigation concerns whether the board of directors
of Comerica have breached their fiduciary duties to the company.
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) Comerica failed to provide meaningful
oversight over the vendors to whom it contracted out day-to-day
operations of the Direct Express program, a system through which it
is contracted to provide federal benefits to millions of Americans
without bank accounts; (2) as a result of violations in the
day-to-day operations of Direct Express, including handling fraud
disputes and allowing sensitive data to be handled out of a
vendor's office in Pakistan, Comerica was not in compliance with
the Federal Contract, and knew it was not in compliance; (3)
Comerica knew and failed to disclose that it was in potential
violation of Regulation E due to inadequate fraud prevention in the
Direct Express program and responses to instances of fraud; and (4)
as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
If you are a long-term stockholder of Comerica, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion
Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, by telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Troutman Pepper Discusses FDCPA Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Jackman, Esq., and Ethan Ostroff, Esq., of Troutman
Pepper, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that on November 22,
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision finding that
the plaintiff lacked Article III standing in a putative class
action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).
In Morales v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., the plaintiff
incurred a debt to a medical services provider. The debt was
assigned to another entity and then referred to the defendant for
collection. In late 2021, the defendant sent the plaintiff a
collection letter containing a statute of limitations disclosure:
"The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the
age of your debt, the creditor cannot sue you for it. In many
circumstances, you can renew the debt and start the time period for
the filing of a lawsuit against you if you take specific actions
such as making certain payments on the debt or making a written
promise to pay. You should determine the effect of any actions you
take with respect to this debt."
The plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated New Jersey residents who received the
defendant's letter alleging a violation of § 1692e of the FDCPA
because the disclosure is false, deceptive, or misleading.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the disclosure is
misleading because by writing the "creditor cannot sue you for [the
debt]," the defendant failed to inform her that she could be sued
on the debt, despite having a complete legal defense to such a
suit. She also alleged that the statute of limitations disclosure
is misleading because by writing "[i]n many circumstances, you can
renew the debt and start the time period for the filing of a
lawsuit against you if you take specific actions such as making
certain payments on the debt or making a written promise to pay,"
the defendant misrepresents the actions required to revive debt
under New Jersey law.
The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim relying on numerous district court
opinions analyzing substantially similar debt collection letters
and finding the language did not violate the FDCPA. The plaintiff
appealed.
While the appeal was pending, the Third Circuit issued a decision
in Huber v. Simon's Agency, Inc., which we discussed here. In
Huber, the appellate court rejected a district court's finding that
the so-called informational injury doctrine, which stands for the
proposition that the omission of statutorily required information
can result in a cognizable injury, established Article III standing
for the named plaintiff and putative class in a class action
brought under the FDCPA. The Third Circuit requested supplemental
briefing from the parties in Morales on how Huber affected the
appeal.
After briefing concluded, the Third Circuit held that the plaintiff
had not established Article III standing. Specifically, the court
found that the plaintiff only showed a "mere risk" of harm, which
cannot support standing. Under either the informational injury
doctrine or traditional standing principles, the plaintiff must
plead facts showing that she suffered some adverse consequence from
her receipt of the allegedly false or misleading letter. The court
found that the plaintiff did not plead any facts showing either
that she relied upon the defendant's letter or that she suffered
any consequence flowing from that reliance. Instead, the plaintiff
simply pled that she received an allegedly misleading letter with
nothing more. The court found this insufficient because "[m]ere
confusion and the speculative risk of a lawsuit are not enough to
confer standing to an FDCPA plaintiff."
The court vacated the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a claim and remanded the case to the district
court to decide whether to grant the plaintiff leave to plead
additional facts in an attempt to show standing or dismiss without
prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. [GN]
CREDIT BUREAU: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due June 14, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD D. MYERS,
Bankruptcy trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Donna Jean
Lunsford; v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE, Case
No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Bazis
entered an amended final progression order as follows:
1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this
time.
2) A status conference to discuss case progression and the
parties’
interest in settlement will be held with the undersigned
magistrate judge by telephone on May 30, 2024 at 3:00 p.m.
3) The deadline for completion of remaining discovery is May 31,
2024.
4) The deadline to file Motions for Class Certification is June
14,
2024.
5) The deadline for summary judgment motions is July 1, 2024.
6) All requests to modify dates shall be presented to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for approval.
Credit Bureau was founded in 1976. The Company's line of business
includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tb0zJM at no extra charge.[CC]
EHANG HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 4
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of EHang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH)
between January 20, 2022 and November 6, 2023, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
EHang investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the EHang class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20249 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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) EHang has continued to state that it is
partnering with United Therapeutics, DHL and Vodafone, among
others, even though a former EHang employee has noted that United
Therapeutics, DHL, and Vodafone have abandoned their respective
deals with EHang; (2) EHang omitted that other entities that had
placed pre-orders for its aircraft, such as Prestige Aviation and
Shenzhen Boling Holding Group, did not engage in regular business
in the aviation sector and are otherwise almost certainly not in a
financial position to be able to afford their orders; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
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
2, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20249 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.
Contacts
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]
EXPENSIFY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 4
disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Expensify, Inc. (NASDAQ:
EXFY) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering
documents issued in connection with Expensify's initial public
offering conducted on or about November 11, 2021 ("IPO"), have
until January 29, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the
Expensify class action lawsuit. Captioned Wilhite v. Expensify,
Inc., No. 23-cv-01784 (D. Or.), the Expensify class action lawsuit
charges Expensify and certain of its top executive officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Expensify class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-expensify-inc-class-action-lawsuit-exfy.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Expensify provides a cloud-based expense
management software platform to individuals, small businesses, and
corporations in the United States and internationally.
The Expensify class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's offering
documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Expensify's revenue growth was highly
susceptible to structural and macroeconomic headwinds; (ii) as a
result, Expensify overstated the efficacy of its business model and
the likelihood it would meet the long-term growth projections
touted in the offering documents; and (iii) accordingly,
Expensify's post-IPO financial position and/or business prospects
were overstated.
The Expensify class action lawsuit alleges that on June 12, 2023,
Morgan Stanley downgraded Expensify to Underweight from
Equal-weight, citing structural headwinds and Expensify's
risk-reward profile. On this news, Expensify's stock price fell
more than 6%, the complaint alleges.
The Expensify class action lawsuit further alleges that on August
8, 2023, Expensify issued a press release announcing its second
quarter 2023 financial and operating results, reporting earnings
per share of -$0.14, missing the consensus estimate of -$0.07, and
revenue of $38.9 million, which likewise missed the consensus
estimate of $41.5 million. Expensify also withdrew its previously
issued revenue growth guidance, according to the complaint. On this
news, Expensify's stock price fell more than 28%, the Expensify
class action lawsuit alleges.
Finally, the Expensify class action lawsuit also alleges that on
November 7, 2023, Expensify issued a press release announcing third
quarter 2023 financial and operating results that once again missed
consensus estimates amid macroeconomic headwinds. Among other
items, Expensify reported a third quarter loss of $0.21 per share
and a 14.1% year-over-year revenue decline, according to the
complaint. On this news, Expensify's stock price fell nearly 37%,
according to the complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Expensify common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering
documents issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff of the Expensify class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Expensify
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Expensify class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Expensify class
action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more
than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in a row
Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone,
Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Burke Sues Over Defective SUVs' Camera System
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BURKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01249-LJV (W.D.N.Y., December 1, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's deceptive and misleading marketing, advertising, and
sale or lease of 2020-2023 Ford Explorer, 2020-2023 Lincoln
Aviator, and/or 2020-2022 Lincoln Corsair SUVs asserting claims
against the Defendant for breach of written warranty, breach of
implied warranty, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
mechantability, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New York General Business Law.
The said vehicles are equipped with a defective 360-Degree Camera
system which routinely and systematically glitches or malfunctions
while the affected vehicles are operating in reverse, resulting in
a total loss of the rear camera image and displaying instead a
blank screen or blue or black image, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dearborn, MI, Ford Motor is a Delaware for-profit
corporation that designs, manufactures, and markets automobiles.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 979-3642
Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
GREAT LAKES: February 23 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kickham Hanley PLLC announced on Dec. 4 that Judge Charles Hegarty
of the Wayne County Circuit Court preliminarily approved a class
action settlement in General Mill Supply Co. v. Great Lakes Water
Authority ("GLWA") and the City of Detroit (the "City"), a lawsuit
challenging IWC Charges imposed by GLWA and the City on certain
types of non-residential sewer users throughout Metro Detroit since
2013. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff contends that: (a) the IWC Charges
were unlawful taxes and (b) the IWC Charges are unlawful because
they were excessive.
The principal terms of the Settlement are as follows:
GLWA will create a Settlement Fund (the "Settlement Fund") in the
amount of Eleven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($11,500,000.00) in order to resolve the claims of the Class. The
amount of the Settlement Fund remaining after payment of attorneys'
fees and costs will be distributed to the Class pursuant to a
refund process.
Persons and businesses (other than a small number of "Significant
Industrial Users") who paid the IWC Charges between July 18, 2013
and June 30, 2023 will be able to claim refunds based upon the
amount of IWC Charges they paid during that period of time as a
percentage of the total amount of IWC Charges paid during that time
by all Class Members who submit valid claims.
If the Court finally approves the Settlement, GLWA and the City
will be released from any claims arising out of the IWC Charges
through the date of final approval.
Greg Hanley, lead counsel for the Class, stated that: "we believe
that this settlement, reached after 5 years of litigation and 8
mediation sessions with a very experienced mediator, is fair and
reasonable for all involved. The settlement provides cold hard cash
to persons and businesses who paid the IWC Charges over the last
ten years and who submit valid claims."
Hanley added, "now that the Court has preliminarily approved the
settlement, we will be sending notices out to Class Members
informing them of the terms of the settlement and instructing them
how to submit claims. It is very important that the Class Members
submit those claims by January 24, 2024. Otherwise, they will not
be able to get a refund."
The Court will hold a Zoom hearing on February 23, 2024 at 2 p.m.
to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved.
Class members seeking additional information (including claim
forms) should go to www.iwcsettlement.com or
www.kickhamhanley.com.
About Kickham Hanley: Kickham Hanley is a "boutique" law firm based
in Royal Oak, Michigan specializing in commercial litigation,
business and real estate transactions, and real estate tax appeals.
The Firm also specializes in complex class actions challenging
various governmental fees and charges. Through successful
litigation, since 2012, the Firm has returned over $100 million in
refunds and benefits to over 160,000 citizens who have been
overcharged by their local governments.
Contacts
Greg Hanley
ghanley@kickhamhanley.com [GN]
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Investors Seek $4.5MM Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that that benefits
class of investors who acquired ADS after 2016 debut Gridsum
Holding Inc. and a class of investors asked a judge to approve a
$4.5 million deal to settle a five-year-old lawsuit alleging the
software company made misleading statements about its accounting
and taxes related to a 2016 initial public offering.
The settlement would resolve allegations that Gridsum and three top
executives misrepresented company's revenue and assets while
understating expenses and losses in disclosures filed after the
IPO, according to the motion for preliminary approval filed Dec. 1
in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Mohammad Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Business Machines Corporation. The case is styled as Khalid
Mohammad, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. International Business Machines Corporation, Progress
Software Corporation, IPSWITCH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12909 (D.
Mass., Nov. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated Recovery/Enforcement Contract for
Federal Election Commission.
The International Business Machines Corporation --
http://www.ibm.com/-- nicknamed Big Blue, is an American
multinational technology corporation headquartered in Armonk, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Union
of Police Association, et al. The case is styled as Christopher
Prosser, and all others similarly situated v. International Union
of Police Association, IUPA d/b/a National Police And Troopers
Association, IUPA d/b/a NPTA John and Jane Does 1 through 50, Case
No. 23JE-CC01065 (Mo. 23rd Judicial Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty., Oct.
31, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
The International Union of Police Associations --
http://www.iupa.org/-- is a North American police union, and is
chartered as a national union that represents law enforcement and
support personnel with the AFL–CIO.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin V. Butler, Esq.
1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220
Des Peres, MO 63131
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. International Union of Police Associations
AFL CIO, International Union of Police Associations, d/b/a National
Police and Troopers Association, John and Jane Does 1 through 50
International Union of Police Associations, d/b/a National Police
and Troopers Association, Case No. 23JE-CC01065 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Oct.
31, 2023), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and a federal statute enacted in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.
The Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does offer a service where they
harass individuals for non-tax-deductible donations. The
Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does uses robocalling and artificial
intelligence automated systems to make outbound telemarketing calls
to thousands, if not millions of consumers across U.S., to harass
and annoy consumers to give non-tax deductible donations for police
officers and their equipment, and to help fallen officers and their
families, when in reality, the lion share of the donations go
directly to marketing firms and call centers for the purpose of
generating more non-tax deductible donations.
By doing so, the Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does violate the
provisions of the Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing
prohibitions and it violated the TCPA when it contacted numbers on
the Missouri and National Do Not Call Registries without their
express written consent. The Defendants have caused Plaintiff and
Class Members to suffer injuries as a result of placing unwanted
robotic, Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems ("ATDS") and
artificial intelligence telephonic calls to their private
residential telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does unlawful
telemarketing calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in this District.
International Union of Police Associations AFL CIO., International
Union of Police Associations AFL CIO d/b/a National Police and
Trooper Association ("IUPA" and "NPTA") is a purported police union
and the NPTA is touted as a "special project of the IUPA" and lead
generator for non-tax-deductible donations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is a represented by:
Edwin V. Butler, Esq.
BUTLER LAW GROUP, LLC
1650 Des Peres Rd., Suite 220
St. Louis, MO 63131
Phone: (314) 504-0001
Email: edbutler@butlerlawstl.com
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE: Heinz Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Heinz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Jackson National Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00925 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 29, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12897-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company -- http://www.jackson.com/
-- is a U.S. company that provides annuities for retail investors
and fixed income products for institutional investors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC (MI)
6905 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brandon C. Hubbard, Esq.
Maureen J. Moody, Esq.
Nolan J. Moody, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC (LANSING)
123 W Allegan St., Ste. 900
Lansing, MI 48933-1816
Phone: (517) 487-4724
Fax: (844) 670-6009
Email: bhubbard@dickinsonwright.com
mmoody@dickinsonwright.com
nmoody@dickinsonwright.com
- and -
John F. LaSalle, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 446-2300
Email: jlasalle@bsfllp.com
- and -
Scott R. Knapp, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC (GRAND RAPIDS)
200 Ottawa Ave., NW, Ste. 1000
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Phone: (517) 371-1730
Email: sknapp@dickinsonwright.com
JCPENNEY OPCO LLC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCPenney OpCo LLC.
The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JCPenney OpCo LLC doing business
as: JCPenney, Case No. 0:23-cv-03647-JWB-TNL (D. Minn., Nov. 28,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Penney OpCo LLC, doing business as JCPenney and often abbreviated
JCP -- http://www.jcpenney.com/-- is an American department store
chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
KFC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Livingstone, writing for 9Now, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been launched against fast food giant KFC over claims
it did not provide adequate breaks to some employees.
The claim has been filed in the Federal Court, with Shine Lawyers
and the Retail and Fast Food Worker's Union (RAFFWU) alleging KFC
failed to give employees their paid 10 minute breaks when working
shifts that were over four hours.
Former KFC employee, Lily O'Sullivan is one of the many who have
come forward to complain about how they were treated during their
time working for the company and told Today it's important,
particularly for young staff, that they're all aware and involved
in their rights as workers.
"They're some of lowest paid, overworked and really hard done by
people in this country that I think we should all be given a fair
go," Lily said.
"Anyone that's ever worked in a fast-food joint knows that it's not
a glamorous job and it's definitely a pretty hard job when your
manager won't abide by the breaks that they're supposed to be
giving you."
According to a statement from the joint head of class actions, KFC
workers are entitled to a paid 10-minute break after four hours of
work and a second paid break after eight hours "pursuant to the
various industrial instruments under which they are employed".
Shine Lawyers representative, Hadi Boustani, told Today it is too
early to speculate how much compensation claimants are looking for,
but based on what he has seen -- it will likely be substantial.
"It's claiming compensation for the value of the unpaid breaks, as
well as the stress that was suffered by these workers for not
having an opportunity to have an appropriate rest when working
shifts over four hours," he said.
Today reached out to KFC about the class action, who provided us
with the following response:
"KFC Australia takes all obligations under the Fair Work Act and
KFC National Enterprise Agreement very seriously, including the
obligation to allow employees to take the paid rest breaks they are
entitled to," the KFC spokesperson said.
"We will be responding to the claim made in the Federal Court in
due course." [GN]
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Allowed to File Documents Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANDERY SANCHEZ, LOUISE
KNUDSON, ANDREA REIHER-ODOM, AMBER WITT, MARK TRESTON, MARGARET
RITZLER, HANK HERBER, LINDA WILBUR, THOMAS ROCCO, JERRY DUBOSE,
APRIL FISHER, AND TEWANA NELSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order that the following documents may be filed
under seal:
-- Exhibit CC
-- Exhibit DD
-- Exhibit FF
-- Exhibit II
-- Exhibit JJ
-- Exhibit KK
-- Exhibit UU
-- Exhibit VV
-- Exhibit WW
-- Exhibit XX
-- Exhibit YY
-- Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in
Support of Motion for Class Certification; and
-- Second Declaration of Joshua Markovits in Support of Class
Certification.
Kia operates as an automobile dealer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RbsGG0 at no extra charge.[CC]
KROGER CO: Parents Renew Class Action Over Teething Wafers
----------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that parents seek
three state classes as well as a nationwide class Parents alleging
Kroger Co. and Fred Meyer Inc. knowingly sold teething wafers with
elevated levels of toxic metals like mercury and arsenic filed an
amended proposed class action complaint.
The US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio said in
September that the parents didn't properly plead their claims since
they didn't specify which state laws applied to their claims. In
their amended complaint, the parents brought claims under Ohio
common law for the national class and Texas, Indiana, and
Washington consumer protection laws. [GN]
LELAND STANFORD: Appeals Court Orders in Hines Suit to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX STAMOS, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders entered
in the lawsuit entitled Jill Hines, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alex Stamos,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00187-JD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged close collaboration
with federal, state, and local government officials to monitor and
censor disfavored viewpoints on social media. This
government-private censorship consortium tramples on the First
Amendment rights, privacy interests, and business expectations of
millions of Americans, suit says. The Plaintiffs bring claims for
civil rights conspiracy and deprivation of rights under color of
state law under 42 U.S. Code, tortious interference with
contractual and business relationships, and breach of duty.
On Aug. 14, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
individual arbitration and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class claims,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Terry A.
Doughty.
On Oct. 26, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to stay, which the
Court denied as moot through an Order entered by Judge Doughty on
Nov. 27, 2023. The case is administratively closed until the appeal
has reached a final determination.
The appellate case is captioned Hines v. Stamos, Case No. 23-30826,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed
on November 20, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JILL HINES, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Gene Patrick Hamilton, Esq.
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
611 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 964-3721
- and -
Julianna Petchak Parks, Esq.
LANGLEY PARKS, L.L.C.
4444 Viking Drive
Bossier City, LA 71111
Telephone: (318) 383-6422
- and -
Dean John Sauer, Esq.
JAMES OTIS LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
13321 N. Outer Forty Road
Saint Louis, MO 63017
Telephone: (314) 562-0031
Defendants-Appellants ALEX STAMOS, et al. are represented by:
James A. Brown, Esq.
LISKOW & LEWIS, A.P.L.C.
701 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 556-4116
- and -
Elisabeth S. Theodore, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, L.L.P.
601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 942-5891
- and -
Daniel J. Dunne, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, L.L.P.
401 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 839-4300
- and -
Alex Benjamin Rothenberg, Esq.
GORDON, ARATA, MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, MCCOLLAM, DUPLANTIS
& EAGAN, L.L.C.
201 Saint Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 679-9826
- and -
Marie Bussey-Garza, Esq.
DLA PIPER, L.L.P. (US)
1650 Market Street
1 Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (210) 656-3315
- and -
Camala Elizabeth Capodice, Esq.
IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART MOORE & DANIELS, L.L.C.
400 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 310-2100
- and -
Jon Keith Guice, Esq.
HAMMONDS, SILLS, ADKINS, GUICE, NOAH & PERKINS, L.L.P.
1500 N. 19th Street
Monroe, LA 71201
Telephone: (318) 324-0101
- and -
Andrew Burns Johnson, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, L.L.P.
1819 5th Avenue, N.
1 Federal Place
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 521-8295
- and -
Alfred Paul LeBlanc, Jr., Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
400 Convention Street
II City Plaza
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 376-0267
LENOVO INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Augustine Due April 2, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OPHELIA AUGUSTINE,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LENOVO
(UNITED STATES), INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02027-L-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered a scheduling order
regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings as follows:
-- The deadline for Defendant to respond to Jan. 10, 2024
Plaintiff's discovery requests is:
-- Any motion to join other parties, to amend Dec. 27, 2023
the pleadings, or to file additional
pleadings shall be filed no later than:
-- Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, March 1, 2024
but class discovery must be completed by:
-- The Plaintiff must file a motion for class April 2, 2024
certification by:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed by Sept. 20, 2024
all parties no later than:
-- All expert discovery shall be completed by Dec. 20, 2024
all parties no later than:
-- Except for motions in limine, all pretrial Jan. 31, 2025
motions must be filed no later than:
-- A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be March 21, 2025
conducted on:
Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TfL5Ej at no extra charge.[CC]
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Gibbs Files Bid for Default Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY GIBBS, TOBY HOY,
and SHARON MCCULLAGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LIVEFREE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., d/b/a
MEDIBUTTON, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:23-cv-00170-REP (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs file a motion for
Default judgment, motion for class certification, and motion for
leave to conduct limited discovery and memoranda in support.
The Defendant had ample notice of this lawsuit and willfully passed
on its opportunity to defend itself against the well-pleaded
allegations at issue.
The claims of Plaintiffs and the Classes arise from a uniform
course of conduct-Defendant places prerecorded voice calls to reach
a large number of consumers. Common issues predominate, and the
claims are subject to common proof. Should this case proceed to
trial, the Defendant would be unable to raise meaningful,
individualized evidence. Instead, the answers to common questions
of law and fact would be the same for all class members. In short,
there is no evidence that Defendant treated any class member in a
divergent manner. Thus, the common issues of law and fact
predominate, justifying certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).
The case illustrates the classic case in which a class action is
the superior method for fair and efficient adjudication. Plaintiff
is seeking statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA,
which amounts to $500 per violation.
The case challenges MediButton's serial violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) -- specifically, its bar against
making unauthorized prerecorded calls to cellphones and its
requirement that callers honor do not call requests.
The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on April 11,
2023, and obtained service on the Defendant on June 1, 2023.
The Plaintiff also seeks to certify two classes of
similarly-situated individuals defined to include:
Prerecorded No Consent Class:
"All persons in the United States who (1) Defendant, or a third
person acting on behalf of Defendant, called; (2) on the
person's
telephone; (3) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products
and
services; (4) using the same pre-recorded voice technology that
was
used to call Plaintiffs; and (5) for whom Defendant claims it
obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant
claims it obtained prior express consent to call Plaintiffs.
DNC Registry Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior
to the filing of this action through class certification (1)
Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of the Defendant)
called
more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where
the
person’s telephone number had been listed on the National Do
Not
Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially
the
same reason Defendant called Plaintiffs, and (5) for whom
Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written
consent
in the same manner as Defendant claim they supposedly obtained
prior express written consent to text Plaintiffs, or (b) they
did
not obtain prior express written consent."
The Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Pocatello, Idaho
that sells medical alert devices to consumers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RqH6mY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
LIVEPERSON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Dec. 4 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired LivePerson,
Inc. ("LivePerson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LPSN) securities
between May 10, 2022 and March 16, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
disclosure controls and procedures contained a material weakness;
(ii) accordingly, the Company maintained deficient internal
controls over its financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the
Company's third quarter 2022 financial statements failed to
disclose the suspension of WildHealth's Medicare reimbursements in
connection with the Program and the resulting negative impact on
the Company's future revenues; and (iv) accordingly, the Company
had overstated its future financial position and/or prospects.
On February 28, 2023, the Company revealed that, as a result of the
Company's acquisition of WildHealth, "[LivePerson] requires more
time to perform additional review and testing of revenue
recognition with respect to a recently discontinued WildHealth
program, for which Medicare reimbursement is suspended pending
further governmental review, and to complete its in-process review
of internal controls and procedures." On this news, the price of
the Company's stock fell more than 14%, according to the
complaint.
On March 6, 2023, the Company disclosed that "the referenced review
of WildHealth revenue is anticipated to affect fourth quarter 2022
revenue attributable to WildHealth's participation in a Medicare
demonstration program, due to suspension in November 2022 of
Medicare reimbursements under the program and pending further
governmental review." On this news, the price of the Company's
stock fell nearly 7%.
On March 16, 2023, the Company revealed that "due to certain
control deficiencies which aggregated to a material weakness in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting . . ., our
disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of
December 31, 2022" and "[t]he control deficiencies, which in
aggregate constitute a material weakness, were identified in
connection with the Company's previously disclosed review of
certain transactions related to its subsidiary WildHealth." On this
news, the price of the Company's stock fell nearly 58%.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of LivePerson
should contact the Firm prior to the January 30, 2024 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
LIVEPERSON INC: Damri Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAM DAMRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVEPERSON, INC., ROB LOCASCIO, and JOHN
COLLINS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10517 (S.D.N.Y., December 1,
2023) alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
remedies under under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired LivePerson
securities between May 10, 2022 and March 16, 2023, both dates
inclusive. Among other things, Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants, throughout the class period, made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations,
and prospects. In LivePerson's Q3 2022 financial statements, the
Defendants failed to disclose the suspension of WildHealth's
Medicare reimbursements in connection with the Medicare
demonstration program related to COVID-19 testing, the Plaintiff
alleges.
Headquartered in New York, LivePerson delivers mobile and online
messaging solutions through Conversational Artificial Intelligence.
In February 2022, the company acquired WildHealth, Inc., a
precision medicine service which purportedly leverages advanced
machine learning to combine DNA analysis, biometrics, microbiome
testing and phenotypic data to provide people with a blueprint for
truly optimized health and a maximized health span. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jacob Sabo, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JACOB SABO
22a Mazzeh Street
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Telephone: (+972) 39070770
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Scheduling Conference Extended to Jan. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD WALTERS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public,
v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. (D/B/A/ LENSCRAFTERS), an Ohio
corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
8:23-cv-01099-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter
entered an order re joint stipulation to continue Rule 26(f)
scheduling conference currently set for December 14, 2023, and
extend deadline to file motion for class certification:
-- The Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference is continued from December
14, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D, to January 25, 2024,
at
9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D.
-- The Parties shall review and comply with: (a) the court's Civil
Standing Order [12], including on the issue of timely filing
the
Joint Rule 26(f) Report, and (b) the court's Order Setting Rule
26(f) Scheduling Conference [13], including the requirements of
the contents of the Joint Rule 26(f) Report to be filed. The
filing deadline for the motion for class certification shall be
calculated from the continued date in accordance with the
Court’s
Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference.
Luxottica designs, manufactures and distributes fashion, luxury,
sports and performance eyewear.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RsPCSy at no extra charge.[CC]
M/V HARVEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in UPRC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Union Pacific Railroad
Company v. M/V Harvey SBISA et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01325-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
M/V Harvey is a vessel sailing under the flag of USA.
A copy of the Court's standing order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NhIlCz at no
extra charge.[CC]
MAJOR ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 1, 2024
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Foote, v. Major
Energy Services LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00414-JL-TSM (D.N.H.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered a preliminary pretrial
conference order as follows:
-- Close of fact discovery: March 12, 2025
-- Close of class certification July 1, 2024
fact discovery:
-- Close of class certification Sept. 12, 2024
expert discovery:
-- Plaintiff's expert disclosure: Jan. 13, 2025
-- Defendant's expert disclosure: Feb. 13, 2025
-- Close of expert discovery: March 12, 2025
-- Motion for class certification: Nov. 1, 2024
Major Energy operates as an energy service company. The Company
supplies natural gas and electricity to residential and commercial
sectors.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rpeaf6 at no extra charge.[CC]
ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Must Submit Expert Reports by Jan. 18, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOCK v. ME&I CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Pa., Filed Jan.
13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order
dismissing motion to quash without prejudice and setting further
deadlines.
-- All further productions to all parties Dec. 19, 23
are to be completed on or before:
-- Furthermore, the deadline for Defendants Jan. 18,
2024
to submit expert reports as to class
certification is extended to and
including:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.[CC]
MEDICINE MAN: Fowler FLSA Suit Mediation Set for Feb. 1, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medicine Man Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023, that the
mediation for Fowler FLSA class suit is tentatively set for
February 1, 2024.
On August 11, 2023, Justin Fowler, a budtender in the Company’s
Cottonwood R. Greenleaf location in New Mexico, filed a wage and
hour case as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and as a class action under the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) against the Company, Schwazze New Mexico,
LLC and R. Greenleaf Organics (collectively "the Company") on
behalf of himself and similarly situated budtenders employed by the
Company.
The complaint alleges that the Company's pooling and allocation of
tips violated federal and state law.
The Company denies all of Plaintiff's allegations.
To date, Plaintiff has joined 13 Opt-in Plaintiffs, of which two
are former employees at one of the Company's Colorado locations.
The parties are presently engaged in early discovery with a
mediation tentatively set for February 1, 2024. If mediation fails,
the Company intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
It is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final
outcome of this litigation or reasonably to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss with respect to this litigation.
If the Company was not to prevail in final, non-appealable
determinations of this litigation, the impact is not anticipated to
be material.
Medicine Man Technologies, Inc., provides cultivation consulting
services for cannabis growing technologies and methodologies. The
company also provides licensing and seminar services. In
addition,
it engages in retail operations of cannabis products. The company
was founded in 2014 and is based in Denver, Colorado.
META PLATFORMS: User Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Portions
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the User Plaintiffs, Advertiser Plaintiffs, and Meta
Platforms, Inc. submit an omnibus motion to seal certain portions
of the Parties' class certification, Daubert briefing, and
supporting documents, as set forth herein and in the supporting
declarations.
This omnibus motion is submitted on behalf of all Parties for the
purpose of judicial administrative convenience and clarity.
The Parties take no position on each other’s requests. User and
Advertiser Plaintiffs filed motions to certify their respective
classes on September 15, 2023.
Meta opposed those motions on October 13, 2023. User and Advertiser
Plaintiffs filed replies in support on November 3, 2023. Advertiser
Plaintiffs filed a corrected reply on November 4, 2023.
Meta requests that the Court seal seven categories of non-public
information:
(1) employee identifying information, including email addresses
and
phone numbers;
(2) business dealings with third parties, including details of
negotiation strategies or specific deal terms;
(3) confidential financial data or information;
(4) confidential pricing data or information;
(5) descriptions of technical functionality of products and
systems;
(6) internal research or analysis on user, transaction, or app
performance, including proprietary methods for conducting
that
research or analysis; and
(7) confidential business strategies, including internal
analyses
or discussions of in-development or unreleased products,
features, or future plans. Meta's proposed redactions are
narrowly tailored to cover only documents or portions of
documents falling within these seven categories that courts
regularly recognize as sealable material. The specific items
to be sealed, and associated reasons for sealing, are listed
in the Declaration of Amrish Acharya.
Consumer Plaintiffs seek to seal a very limited amount of
information in the transcripts of the named plaintiffs, and the
deposition of Dr. Economides.
Meta specializes in online social networking services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gnagx3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
Kyle J. Pozan, Esq.
Laura M. Matson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
aswagner@locklaw.com
kjpozan@locklaw.com
lmmatson@locklaw.com
- and -
Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
Claire D. Hausman, Esq.
Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq.
Michelle Schmit, Esq.
Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
clairehausman@quinnemanuel.com
brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com
michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com
manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (332) 322-8835
E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Henry Kelston, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
Patrick J. Rodriguez, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
prodriguez@scott-scott.com
- and -
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com
acohen@lfsblaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
David Z. Gringer, Esq.
Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq.
Ryan Chabot, Esq.
Paul Vanderslice, Esq.
Ari Holtzblatt, Esq.
Molly M. Jennings, Esq.
Michaela P. Sewall, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com
Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com
Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com
Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com
MGM RESORTS: Albrigo Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Willis Albrigo, Anita Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. MGM Resorts International, Case No. 3:23-cv-01797 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on Nov. 30, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01981-RFB-EJY to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
MGM Resorts International -- https://www.mgmresorts.com/en.html --
is an American global hospitality and entertainment company
operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Maryland, Ohio, and New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Angela C. Agrusa, Esq.
LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE REGERSTREIF &
TAYLOR
1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
Phone: (310) 500-3500
MHM HEALTH: Lewis Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY LEWIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MHM HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS, LLC f/k/a MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00228-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting unopposed motion for leave to file Exhibits under
seal.
The Plaintiffs seek to rely upon documents designated by MHM as
confidential pursuant to the agreed protective order entered by the
Court.
The Plaintiffs file this motion under seal in order given that the
documents were designated by MHM pursuant to the protective order.
By doing so, Plaintiffs seek to facilitate and expedite the
handling of their motions and do not necessarily concede the
documents were properly designated as confidential.
MHM provides medical and behavioral healthcare services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N9fJLA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
Sammy O. Homsi, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza. Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
sammy@parmet.law
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
AMurthy@forthepeople.com
MICROSOFT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Saeedy Due Jan. 31, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOAH SAEEDY, VISHAL SHAH,
TINA WILKINSON, and M.S., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01104-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order setting the following
deadlines and briefing schedule:
Deadline Date
Joinder of Parties Deadline April 8, 2024
Amended Pleadings April 8, 2024
Deadline for Parties to Serve Any Nov. 1, 2024
Expert Report(s) Relevant for
Class Certification
Deadline to complete discovery on class December 31, 2024
certification (not to be construed as a
bifurcation of discovery)
Deadline for Any Rebuttal Expert Report(s) January 10, 2025
Relevant for Class Certification
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for January 31, 2025
Class Certification
Deadline for Defendant to file Response to February 28, 2025
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in March 21, 2025
Support of Motion for Class Certification
Microsoft is an American multinational technology corporation
headquartered in Redmond, Washington.
A copy of the Court's minute order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TdEx92 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MIDFIRST BANK: Strother Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Strother, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MidFirst Bank, Case No. 5:23-cv-00995
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on Nov. 29, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12898-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for Account
Receivable.
MidFirst Bank -- http://www.midfirst.com/-- is a privately owned
financial institution based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony J Hendricks, Esq.
Timila S Rother, Esq.
William H Hoch, III, Esq.
CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC
Braniff Building
324 N Robinson Ave., Suite 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 239-5411
Fax: (405) 272-5932
Email: Anthony.Hendricks@crowedunlevy.com
timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com
will.hoch@crowedunlevy.com
- and -
Jason K. Fagelman, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 855-8120
Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com
MIDJOURNEY INC: Artists' Lawyers File Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam Schrader, writing for Artnet, reports that the lawyers
representing a group of artists who filed a class action lawsuit
against three A.I. companies -- Midjourney Inc, DeviantArt Inc, and
Stability A.I. -- have filed an amended complaint to address
concerns of the court after a federal judge dismissed some of their
claims in October.
The October decision by U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick
was a blow to the three artists who had originally filed the
lawsuit: Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz.
At the time, Orrick allowed one count of copyright infringement to
move forward against Stability A.I. for allegedly copying the 16
works for which Andersen had registered her copyrights with the
U.S. Copyright Office, considered the core claim of the lawsuit.
But he had dismissed several other claims of alleged infringement
of works by McKernan and Ortiz, allowing the artists time to amend
the complaint. The chance to amend a complaint can allow a
plaintiff to add additional points for consideration and even
address any concerns of the court. In this case, the court had
identified specific topics where it sought more details of the
allegations made.
"We believe that the amended complaint addresses the court's
requests," lawyers Joseph Saveri and Matthew Butterick said in an
emailed statement to Artnet News. "The amended complaint… shows
the ways in which defendants' A.I. image generators copy
plaintiffs' work, and how the output of these generators is used to
compete with or supplant the plaintiffs' work in the marketplace."
Indeed, the entire lawsuit has been reworked and rewritten, jumping
from a 46-page complaint filed in January to 94 pages -- and over
450 when including published evidence exhibits showing the alleged
copyright infringement. Much of the additions are technical,
pertaining to descriptions of the machine-learning process and
precisely how the works of the artists were used to train the
models at question.
Perhaps the first changes immediately noticeable on the amended
complaint is the addition of seven new plaintiffs, identified as
Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald
Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye and Adam Ellis.
"Ok this is huge! I'm officially joining @kortizart
@scribbles_sarah @Kelly_McKernan as plaintiff in our class action
lawsuit with other awesome plaintiffs @GeraldBrom, Greg Machess,
@zemotion, Julia Kaye Adam Ellis and Hawke Southworth!" Rutkowski
said on Twitter, confirming the new plaintiffs.
Zhang, a freelance artist and photographer, also issued a public
statement on their website and said the amended complaint "breaks
down the tech" behind image generative A.I. models and copyright in
a way that is easy to understand, gives a clearer picture on what
the lawsuit is about, and "sets the record straight" on some
misleading headlines that have been in the press this past year.
"I am very grateful that we now have photography represented in
this lawsuit, because gen AI models are heavily trained on the
works of our industry, from hobbyists to professionals alike, and I
believe we should be heard too," Zhang said. "To my fellow sisters
and brothers in creative industries affected by this exploitation
of our work, I hope this case can continue to give voice to the
countless thousands of us, and set a legal precedent that makes
things right."
The amended complaint also adds a new defendant: Runway A.I., the
company that trained Stable Diffusion 1.5.
"Though the defendants claim to be selling access to A.I. image
products, what they're really selling is copyright infringement as
a service. The scale of this misappropriation is staggering and
unprecedented, with violations of law happening at every phase: the
gathering and copying of the dataset, the training and deployment
of the model, and the output images," the amended complaint reads.
"Worst of all, the defendants hold out their A.I. image products as
being able to create substantially similar substitutes for the very
works they were trained on -- either specific training images, or
images that imitate the trade dress of particular artists --
including plaintiffs." [GN]
MILLIMAN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 25, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MORRIS and LARS F.
BRAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a INTELLISCRIPT, Case No.
2:23-cv-00446-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour
entered an order granting stipulated motion extending case
management schedule
deadlines as follows:
Event Former Deadline New
Deadline
Deadline for fact discovery Jan. 12, 2024 Apr. 11,
2024
Plaintiff's expert report(s) Feb. 9, 2024 May 9,
2024
served on defendant
Defendant's expert report(s) Mar. 8, 2024 June 6,
2024
served on plaintiff
Plaintiff's rebuttal report(s) Apr. 5, 2024 July 5,
2024
served on defendant
Plaintiff's motion for class Apr. 26, 2024 July 25,
2024
certification
Defendant's response to motion May 24, 2024 Aug. 22,
2024
for class certification
Plaintiff's reply in support June 7, 2024 Sept. 5,
2024
of class certification
Milliman is an international actuarial and consulting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rr0Ir9 at no extra charge.[CC]
MISSISSIPPI: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by June 30, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC WALLACE, et al., v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-00516-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge LaKeysha Greer
Isaac entered class certification scheduling order as follows:
-- The parties will exchange initial Jan. 23, 2023
disclosures regarding class
certification issues pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 on or prior to:
-- The deadline to file any motions to Feb. 2, 2024
amend the pleadings or to join
additional parties is:
-- The deadline for the Defendants to March 4, 2024
respond to Plaintiffs amended
complaint, if any, is:
-- Expert witnesses for class certification,
if any, shall be disclosed, in
compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26:
for Plaintiffs' side, by: Aug. 30, 2024
for Defendants' side by: Dec. 30, 2024
-- Discovery must be completed by: March 3, 2025
-- Daubert motions challenging the April 28, 2025
Parties' class certification
experts must be filed by:
-- Plaintiffs' side motion for June 30, 2025
class certification and
memorandum shall be filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Y2ghE at no extra charge.[CC]
MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: Gardner Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer Gardner, et al.,
v. Missoula County, et al., Case No. 9:23-cv-00146-DLC (D. Mont.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
of prisoners.
Missoula County is located in the State of Montana. The county
comprises the Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R8ztA7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, NEGEEN
MIRREGHABIE, and CHRISTOPHER JENNEN, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, v. MONDELĒZ
GLOBAL LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00057-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order:
(1) Granting in part and Denying in part the Defendant's
Request
for judicial notice;
(2) Granting in part and Denying in part the Defendant's Motion
to
dismiss; and
(3) Denying the Defendant's motion to stay proceedings.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
MDLZ deceptively marketed and sold dark chocolate bars containing
unsafe levels of lead and cadmium.
Mondelez is a subsidiary of Mondelez International, Inc., a
multinational confectionery, food, and beverage company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47GFjzJ at no extra charge.[CC]
MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Gevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSL Community
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Ann Gevara,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MSL
Community Management, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0012611 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 27, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
MSL Community Management, LLC doing business as MBK Senior Living
-- https://www.mbkseniorliving.com/ -- is a Retirement home in
Irvine, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Gross, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 2074
Calabasas, CA 91302-3430
Phone: 818-924-2115
Email: Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK et al v. MULTNOMAH
COUNTY et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00501 (D. Or., Filed April 5,
2021), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Motion for class certification is due by: Dec. 22,
2023
-- Response to motion for class certification Jan. 26,
2024
is due by:
-- Amended pleadings are due 45 days following the Court's order
on
plaintiffs' motion for certification.
-- Fact discovery material to individual claims is to be completed
120 days following the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
-- Dispositive motions are due 45 days following the close of fact
discovery material to individual claims. ADR report is due 60
days
following the Court's ruling on any dispositive motions.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison Condition.
Multnomah County is Oregon's most densely populated county and home
to Portland, Oregon's largest city.[CC]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeal in Antitrust Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hiltzik, writing for Dominion Post, reports that there can
be few American public institutions more widely detested than the
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The NCAA spent decades promoting the ideal of the amateur
"student-athlete," barring football and basketball players from
compensation while their coaches and university athletic directors
collected millions of dollars a year. Its disciplinary system, rife
with favoritism and inconsistencies, is honored by member
universities more in the breach than the observance.
And when it doesn't get its way, it hasn't been shy about bullying
-- not that it always works, as when it threatened in 2019 to ban
California universities from championship games if the Legislature
voted to allow payments to those student-athletes.
As it happens, the very issue covered by that legislation --
compensation for the use of college players' "names, images and
likenesses," or NIL for short -- is at the center of what the NCAA
implies could be an extinction event for the collegiate sports
system as we know it today, if not for the NCAA itself.
The NCAA's hand-wringing has come about because federal Judge
Claudia Wilken of Oakland has certified an antitrust lawsuit naming
the association and its five most important regional sports
conferences, the so-called Power Five, as a class action.
Wilken designated three classes of plaintiffs: current and former
men's football and basketball players in the Power Five
conferences, current and former women's basketball players in those
conferences, and all other current and former athletes who competed
on Division I teams prior to July 1, 2021, and have received NIL
payments from third parties under the NCAA's temporary suspension
of NIL payment restrictions.
The athletes who brought the case have asked for $1.4 billion in
damages, which under antitrust law would be trebled if they win,
for a total of $4.2 billion.
A judgment of that magnitude, the NCAA says in an appeal brief,
"would necessitate curtailing college sports programs across the
country." It says it would face "intense pressure to settle,"
presumably on highly disadvantaged terms -- at least for the
association, the athletic conferences and the administrators who
have been running university programs on a business model dependent
on paying athletes virtually nothing.
"The hard work of college athletes," the plaintiffs observed in
their lawsuit, "has translated into billion-dollar television
deals, multi-million-dollar coaching salaries, extravagant
facilities, and lucrative commercial licensing and sponsorship
agreements" for the NCAA, its conferences and their executives.
Now that the financial ground is shifting under the feet of the
NCAA and the richest athletic programs, they're feeling the pain
from the collapse of their franchise.
The numbers tell the story.
In recent years the Big Ten, Southeastern and Big 12 conferences
signed multiyear television deals for football worth a total of
more than $12 billion. In 2016, the NCAA renewed its contract with
Turner Sports and CBS for broadcast rights to its men's basketball
tournament for $8.8 billion over eight years.
The lawsuit plaintiffs assert that more than 150 football and
basketball coaches in the NCAA's elite Division I earn more than $1
million a year; the best-paid 25 football coaches collect an
average of $5.2 million and the top 25 basketball coaches an
average of $3.2 million. In fiscal 2021-22, NCAA President Mark
Emmert earned nearly $3.3 million, according to NCAA disclosures.
Emmert retired earlier this year, but it's a fair bet that the
compensation of his successor, former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie
Baker, will be in the same neighborhood.
That should provide context to the NCAA's long drive to keep
student players on a short financial leash, in order to preserve
the impression that the players are merely amateurs, playing sports
out of love for the game.
The opening of the NIL spigot has provided a bounty for star
college football and basketball athletes. Seven-figure NIL
endorsement deals have been signed by marquee players, topped by
USC basketball player Bronny James, the son of Lakers star LeBron
James, for $5.9 million from Nike and Apple's Beats by Dre, among
other brands. Other top players without gilded parentages are also
receiving eye-popping deals.
The NCAA's position that amateurism is crucial to maintaining fans'
enthusiasm for college football and basketball has been under
attack for the better part of a decade. In 2014, Wilken chipped
away at the NCAA's ban on NIL compensation, in a landmark case
launched in 2009 with former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon as
lead plaintiff.
Wilken recognized big-college sports as a business, not amateur
competition. But her solution was to allow NCAA schools to set up
trust funds of several thousand dollars per player per year to hold
their shares of the licensing revenue they had earned until
graduation. She rejected the plaintiffs' proposal to allow
student-athletes to make commercial endorsements, because she
accepts that the NCAA and its member schools should protect the
students from "commercial exploitation."
The NCAA had already sustained two blows in 2021. In June, the
Supreme Court ruled narrowly, but unanimously, that the NCAA was
subject to antitrust laws and that its restrictions on certain
education-related benefits for athletes breached the laws. In a
concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh ridiculed the NCAA's
argument that fans would abandon big-time football and basketball
if they knew the players were getting paid.
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not
to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their
product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,"
Kavanaugh wrote.
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling the NCAA, perhaps detecting
the writing on the wall, temporarily suspended its ban on NIL
compensation while working out a system of new rules.
The following September, National Labor Relations Board General
Counsel Jennifer A. Abruzzo issued a memo defining scholarship
athletes at academic institutions as employees. Calling them
"student-athletes" is legally a misclassification, Abruzzo said; in
fact, she explicitly refused to accept the term in her memo, on the
grounds that it had been coined chiefly "to avoid paying workers'
compensation claims to injured athletes."
The truth is that amateurism in college sports -- indeed, the very
concept of the student-athlete -- has always been clothed in the
rosy glow of myth. The meet generally regarded as the first
intercollegiate athletic contest, the 1852 Harvard-Yale boat race
on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire, was openly a profit-making
event, sponsored by a railroad magnate conniving to gin up tourist
interest in the lake and its environs.
In that era, collegiate football was a commercial enterprise
employing athletes for pay. That system prevailed until 1905, when
18 fatalities on the college gridiron provoked President Theodore
Roosevelt to force Harvard, Yale and Princeton to codify rules
aimed at protecting players from injury.
Roosevelt's initiative gave birth to the NCAA. As one of its first
acts, the NCAA outlawed payments, direct or indirect, to players,
thereby defining players as amateurs. The NCAA rode that concept
hard for more than a century. Its lawyers coined the term
"student-athlete" in the 1950s, but since under-the-table payments
still existed it was offered with a cynical wink.
The NCAA is trying to hold back the tide on two fronts. In its
appeal of Wilken's latest ruling, it is arguing that the judge was
wrong to certify the three classes of plaintiffs. College players
don't have the common characteristics needed for a class action,
the NCAA asserts; nor would it be fair to apportion, say, revenues
from a TV deal evenly among all players on a team.
The NCAA's second front is on Capitol Hill. The association has
been trying to persuade Congress to step in. In an appearance Oct.
17 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the NCAA's Baker asked
the lawmakers to overrule state laws in 30 states governing NIL
payment rights by enacting a federal law.
More tellingly, Baker asked the senators to enact a law affirming
that "student-athletes … are not employees of an institution" --
in other words, to overturn the NLRB's doctrine in a way that would
stifle the earning rights of most players and eliminate such
threats as unionization.
"College sports are a uniquely powerful and beloved institution,"
Baker said.
How often have we heard this before? It's a rare industry that
doesn't come to Capitol Hill pleading that it's so special that it
deserves a tailor-made system of laws and regulations. Baker may
claim that his industry is unique, but he sounds exactly like every
other business leader looking for a legal bailout.
The NCAA is trapped in a morass of its own making. Its century-old
business model has come face to face with 21st century realities,
and it needs to deal with the world as it is, instead of trying to
keep living in a world of its own. [GN]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Action May Elevate Assisted Living Role
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Bonvissuto, writing for McKnight's Senior Living, reports
that certification of a class-action lawsuit against New
Hampshire's home- and community-based services waiver program could
be the catalyst for elevating assisted living as a viable Medicaid
option, according to one senior living organization.
A federal judge certified a class-action lawsuit against the New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services for placing
recipients of its HCBS waiver program at "serious risk of
unjustified institutionalization" by failing to ensure those
services are provided.
Choices for Independence, New Hampshire's Medicaid waiver program,
provides HCBS to nearly 3,800 adults who would otherwise be
Medicaid-eligible for nursing home care. Some assisted living
providers provide HCBS to residents under the waiver program.
A lawsuit against the program was filed in January 2021 in US
District Court in New Hampshire by New Hampshire Legal Assistance,
the Disability Rights Center-New Hampshire and the AARP Foundation.
After initially denying a motion for class certification, Judge
Paul J. Barbadoro ruled on Nov. 27 that there was evidence that
hundreds of people could face "unjustified institutionalization"
due to CFIs failure to ensure eligible individuals received
eligible community-based long-term services and supports.
Earlier this year, agencies that provide HCBS services through the
CFI program -- including assisted living providers -- told
lawmakers they could no longer afford to participate in the program
without significant rate increases.
State legislators passed a state budget in June that gave providers
a 3% increase in Medicaid payments in July, with additional raises
coming in January. But the groups filing the lawsuit said the
increase would address only workforce shortage issues, and would
not correct the program's shortcomings, including its failure to
ensure CFI recipients receive approved services.
The suit could shine a light on assisted living as a viable HCBS
option, according to Brendan Williams, president and CEO of the New
Hampshire Health Care Association. He told McKnight's Senior Living
that too few providers are willing to take on Medicaid contracts
because the "rates are just so terrible."
"Too often, assisted living is treated as a middle child when it
comes to home care and nursing homes -- it's the Jan Brady of
long-term care," Williams said.
And while the state made "solid progress" in the last legislative
session on funding in home care, it only made "marginal progress"
in improving funding for assisted living.
"We really do need a game-changer when it comes to placing a
greater priority on making assisted living an option for Medicaid
residents," Williams said. "I hope that will emerge from this
litigation."
The state recently embarked on a gap analysis of its HCBS system to
improve and promote community integration, independence and a
robust system of LTSS for older adults and people living with
disabilities. [GN]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Must Face Class Action Over Nursing Home Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annmarie Timmins, writing for Newhampshire Bulletin, reports that
the Department of Health and Human Services was facing a lawsuit
from two people who said the state had put them at severe risk of
entering a nursing home by providing them less in-home care than it
had deemed necessary.
In one case, a 38-year-old woman with disabilities was receiving
only a "small portion" of the 68 hours of weekly care the state had
allotted her, according to the lawsuit.
A federal judge has certified the case as a class-action lawsuit,
pointing to evidence that there could be dozens, even hundreds of
people who face the same risk of being institutionalized for the
same reasons.
The program at the center of the case is Choices for Independence,
which provides nearly 3,800 Granite Staters who don't want to go
into a nursing home the basic care and services that allow them to
remain at home or in a small community setting. That care can
include assistance with bathing, housekeeping, and cooking.
In his ruling, Judge Paul Barbadoro defined the class as, "CFI
Waiver participants who, during the pendency of this lawsuit, have
been placed at serious risk of unjustified institutionalization
because defendants, by act or omission, fail to ensure that the CFI
participants receive the community-based long-term care services
and supports . . . for which they have been found eligible and
assessed to need."
It was a significant victory for the advocacy groups, including New
Hampshire Legal Assistance, the Disability Rights Center-NH, the
AARP Foundation, and the law firm Nixon Peabody, that filed the
case in the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire in January 2021.
Barbadoro had previously rejected their request for class-action
certification, citing insufficient evidence that the individual
plaintiffs' experiences were typical of all CFI recipients.
"It's not like we couldn't have still moved forward with the two
individual plaintiffs, and the relief we could have gotten would
have potentially had a systemic effect," said New Hampshire Legal
Assistance attorney Cheryl Steinberg. "But this gives us a much
broader ability to create a sense of relief for the whole class
that will hopefully improve the service delivery."
The CFI program made headlines this year when the agencies the
state relies on to provide services told lawmakers they could no
longer afford to continue the work without significant rate
increases from the state. Those increases came in October and will
help address the workforce shortage issue raised in the lawsuit.
Without workers, services can't be provided.
But, the rate increase won't address all the CFI program
shortcomings alleged in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs allege the Department of Health and Human Services
fails to sufficiently monitor and support the private agencies it
licenses to plan and provide CFI services.
While the department's regulations grant those agencies discretion
in determining what services a person needs and how to meet those
needs, the state is still ultimately responsible for ensuring that
CFI clients get those approved services, Barbadoro wrote.
Among the tasks given to the agencies is developing person-centered
care plans that identify how care will be provided and the
contingency plans if an assigned caregiver is unavailable. But, the
department doesn't review the plans for completeness and, in some
cases, can't because some agencies decline to share them, Barbadoro
wrote.
When an agency has too few staff to provide the required hours of
care, the department does not "meaningfully assist" by monitoring
which of its licensed providers may have availability, according to
his order.
The plaintiffs allege the department does not sufficiently track
service gaps to know when a person is receiving fewer hours of care
than approved. While Barbadoro found that the department has
systems in place for identifying and responding to gaps, he said it
needs to do more.
For example, the department looks for gaps by comparing the number
of approved care hours against the hours provided. But it does so
at a high level, not the client level, making it impossible to know
in real time which client is receiving too few services.
The case is set to go to trial in March.
Jennifer Eber, litigation director for Disability Rights Center-NH,
described the day plaintiffs learned Barbadoro had certified the
case as a class-action lawsuit as "hopeful."
"With this decision, we can move forward with seeking change to the
program so that it is managed in a way that does not leave CFI
participants without the services that they need," she said in a
statement.
The Attorney General's Office, which represents state agencies in
court, declined to comment on the case on Dec. 1 because it is
pending.
When Attorney General John Formella asked for an additional $7
million from the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee in August for
increased litigation cases, this was one case he mentioned. Others
included the hundreds of civil lawsuits filed by people who said
they were abused as children while held at the Youth Development
Center. [GN]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. New York University, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-10515-VSB-SN (S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2023) seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief that will prevent the New York University Law
Review from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment
to any person on account of that individual's race or sex, and to
require colorblind and sex-neutral consideration of any application
for membership or an editorial position on the law review in
violation of the Title VI and Title IX.
The Plaintiff is a first-year law student at NYU, and he intends to
apply for law-review membership in the summer of 2024.
NYU Law Review is an academic journal edited and operated by
students at NYU Law School. The students select and edit the
articles that the Law Review will publish, and they also select the
students who serve as members and editors of the Law Review. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
- and -
Gene P. Hamilton, Esq.
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
611 Pennsylvania Avenue SE #231
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 964-3721
E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
- and -
Ronald A. Berutti, Esq.
MURRAY-NOLAN BERUTTI LLC
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005-2205
Telephone: (212) 575-8500
E-mail: ron@murray-nolanberutti.com
- and -
Christopher Mills, Esq.
SPERO LAW LLC
557 East Bay Street #22251
Charleston, SC 29413
Telephone: (843) 606-0640
E-mail: cmills@spero.law
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces ERISA Suit Over Employees' Fund Handling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextera Energy, Inc. (NEE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that in
September 2023, a participant in the NEE Employee Retirement
Savings Plan, purportedly on behalf of the plan and all persons who
were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time
between September 25, 2016 and September 25, 2023 (Plan
participants), filed a putative ERISA class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
NEE.
The complaint alleges that NEE violated its fiduciary duties under
the Plan by permitting a third-party administrative recordkeeper to
charge allegedly excessive fees for the services provided and
allegedly by allowing a large volume of plan assets to be invested
in NEE common stock. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, equitable and
monetary relief on behalf of the Plan and Plan participants.
NextEra Energy, Inc. is an energy company with about 58 GW of
generating capacity, revenues of over $18 billion in 2020, and
about 14,900 employees throughout the US and Canada.
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over SEC Non-disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nextera Energy, Inc. (NEE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that NEE,
along with certain current and former executives, are the named
defendants in a purported shareholder securities class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida in June 2023 that seeks from the defendants unspecified
damages allegedly resulting from alleged lack of disclosures and
misstatements regarding NEE's legal and reputational risk related
to campaign finance allegations and other political activities.
The alleged class of plaintiffs are all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired NEE securities between December 2,
2021 and February 1, 2023.
NextEra Energy, Inc. is an energy company with about 58 GW of
generating capacity, revenues of over $18 billion in 2020, and
about 14,900 employees throughout the US and Canada.
NEXTERA ENERGY: Sued Over Campaign Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Nextera Energy, Inc. (NEE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that NEE,
along with certain current and former executives and directors are
the named defendants in purported shareholder derivative action
lawsuits filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County,
Florida in July 2023 and in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in October 2023 that seek from the
defendants unspecified damages allegedly resulting from, among
other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and, in the latter case,
violations of the federal securities laws, all purporting to relate
to alleged campaign finance law violations and associated matters.
NextEra Energy, Inc. is an energy company with about 58 GW of
generating capacity, revenues of over $18 billion in 2020, and
about 14,900 employees throughout the US and Canada.
NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: Houston Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeast Georgia
Health System, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Keith Houston,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Northeast Georgia Health System, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00254-RWS
(N.D. Ga., Nov. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Northeast Georgia Health System (NGHS) -- https://www.nghs.com/ --
is a not-for-profit community health system dedicated to improving
the health and quality of life of the people of Northeast
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq.
600 Blakenham Court
Johns Creek, GA 30022
Phone: (404) 276-7277
Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Kawa Orthodontics Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kawa Orthodontics LLP, a Florida limited liability partnership,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. NORTHWELL HEALTH LABORATORIES CORPORATION,
NORTHWELL HEALTHCARE, INC., New York corporations, NORTHWELL
LABORATORIES APEX PERSONNEL, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, and NORTHWELL HEALTH MEDICAL, INC., a Florida corporation,
Case No. 9:23-cv-81424-WPD (S.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2023), is brought
challenging the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
facsimile Advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005 (hereafter the "TCPA").
The restriction regarding unsolicited fax advertisements falls
under "automated telephone equipment." The TCPA defines
"unsolicited advertisement" as "any material advertising the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services which is transmitted to any person without that person's
prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise."
The Defendants, or a person or entity acting on behalf of
Defendants, in violation of the TCPA, sent Plaintiff an unsolicited
fax advertisement September 18, 2023 (the "Fax"). The Fax
advertises the commercial availability and/or quality of
Defendants' property, goods, or services, namely, Defendants'
mobile lab services.
The Fax is a generic advertising template suitable for mass
transmission to numerous recipients. On this basis, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants, or persons and/or entities acting on
behalf of Defendants, in violation of the TCPA, sent the same Fax
on or about September 18, 2023, to the proposed Class. On
information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants
have sent other unsolicited advertisements via facsimile
transmission in violation of the TCPA during the four years
preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
The Plaintiff alleges that this action is based upon a common
nucleus of operative facts because the facsimile transmissions at
issue were and are being done in the same or similar manner. This
action is based on the same legal theory, namely, liability under
the TCPA for sending unsolicited fax advertisements, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Florida limited liability partnership.
Northwell Health Laboratories Corporation and Northwell Healthcare,
Inc., are New York corporations; Northwell Laboratories Apex
Personnel, LLC, is a New York limited liability company; and
Northwell Health Medical, Inc., is a Florida corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: 847-368-1500
Fax: 847-368-1501
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
OASIS BAKERY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oasis Bakery
Collection, Inc. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Oasis Bakery
Collection, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08828 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Oasis Bakery Collection, Inc. -- https://www.oasisbreads.com/ -- is
a Southern California's wholesale bakery for craft breads made by
hand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
OLD NAVY: Faces Class Action in California Over AI Chatbots
-----------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that there's a new legal question about artificial
intelligence (AI) at the center of a recent federal lawsuit.
Can AI engage in illegal wiretapping? The class-action suit, at the
center of a report Sunday (Dec. 3) by CNBC, accuses Old Navy's
chatbot of that exact crime by logging, recording and storing
conversation.
The lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California, claims
that the chatbot "convincingly impersonates an actual human that
encourages consumers to share their personal information."
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff says he spoke with what he
thought was a human customer service rep at Old Navy. In reality,
he was speaking with an AI chatbot who recorded the entire
conversation.
In addition, the suit claims that Old Navy illegally shares
customer data with third parties without informing consumers or
seeking permission.
Reached by PYMNTS, Old Navy declined to comment.
The CNBC report noted that dozens of similar suits have been filed
in California against companies that include Home Depot, General
Motors, Ford, and J.C. Penney, alleging unlawful recording of
private online chat conversations, though not always involving AI.
AI experts say the outcome of the suit will likely involve
companies adding a warning label to tell customers their chatbots
might record their conversations, similar to the "This call is
being recorded for quality training purposes" messages played
before customer service calls.
However, the report adds that the suit showcases some pertinent
privacy questions surrounding AI chatbots that may need to be
answered before consumers trust AI.
"One of the concerns about these tools is that we don't know very
much about what data was actually used to train them," Irina Raicu,
director of the Internet Ethics Program at the Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, told CNBC.
However, recent research by PYMNTS Intelligence shows that
consumers are already fairly comfortable in trusting AI in their
everyday lives.
That research showed that 39% of consumers used voice technology
built into their smartphones, 25% used a voice-enabled app on a
mobile device, and 15% used the voice capabilities that come with
their cars.
And with the field consisting of a number of players building out
AI, there might soon be a considerable range of activities we rely
on this technology to carry out.
"Picture a future, then, where one uses Alexa for commerce but
Spotify to choose music or (possibly, hypothetically) order concert
tickets, while those who are in thrall to the Apple ecosystem
navigate through media and commerce with enhanced Siri
capabilities," PYMNTS wrote. "Amazon said in September it updated
its Alexa speaker with improved conversational features,
underpinned by generative AI." [GN]
POSTMEDS INC: Autry Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PostMeds, Inc. The
case is styled as Russell Autry, Jacob Benjamin, Victoria Phillip,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
PostMeds, Inc. doing business as: Truepill, Case No.
4:23-cv-06173-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
PostMeds, Inc., doing business as TruePill --
https://www.truepill.com/ -- provides online pharmacy delivery
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0800
Fax: (619) 230-1874
Email: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Hakemi Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AHMAD HAKEMI, MD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION;
ARIETIS HEALTH LLC; ANESTHESIA CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT, LP; AND
NORTHSTAR ANESTHESIA OF MICHIGAN II, PC; Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01123 (M.D. Fla., December 3, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' failure to to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information seeking redress for their alleged unlawful
conduct and claims for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and
arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services
and applications involving MOVEit, Progress Software Corporation
stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information on its MOVEit transfer services software that
was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as
to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple
breaches of its network and systems or of its customers’ networks
and systems. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as
2021. On May 31, 2023, PSC reported a vulnerability in MOVEit
Transfer and MOVEit Cloud (CVE-2023-34362) that could lead to
escalated privileges and potential unauthorized access to the
environment. PSC purportedly launched an investigation, alerted
MOVEit customers of the issue and provided mitigation steps.
Allegedly, the Russian cyber gang Clop took responsibility for the
attack--which began on May 27, 2023--and began attempts to ransom
and exploit data accessed from MOVEit, says the suit.
Based in Massachusetts, PSC offers a wide range of software
products and services to corporate and governmental entities
throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting
and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (813) 699-4056
E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Kristin A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
R L M K INC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R L M K, INC., et al.
The case is styled as Isiah Maldonado, on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. R L M K, INC., Delph
Enterprises, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-103985 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Nov. 30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
R L M K, INC. is a corporate office in Visalia, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bevin E.A. Pike, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
Phone: 310-712-8010
Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
RENOVARO BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend Choi Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renovaro Biosciences Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Choi securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.
On July 26, 2022, securities class action complaint, ( the "Chow
Action") were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors.
The complaint allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection
with the Company's relationship with Serhat Gümrükcü and its
commercial prospects.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On November 22, 2022, but the Chow action remains pending.
The defendants did not respond to the complaint in the Manici
action and have not yet responded to the complaint in the Chow
action.
The Company intends to contest this matter but expresses no opinion
as to the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
Renovaro Biosciences Inc. (NASDAQ: RENB) is a pre-clinical stage
biotechnology company, engages in the research and development of
pharmaceutical and biological products for the human treatment of
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and
cancer in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Enochian Biosciences, Inc. and changed its name to Renovaro
Biosciences Inc. in August 2023. Renovaro Biosciences Inc. is
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
ROBLOX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 26
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 3
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Class A common stock of Roblox Corporation (NYSE:
RBLX) between March 10, 2021 and February 15, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than January 26, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Roblox class A common stock 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 Roblox class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20661 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 January 26, 2024.
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. 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 made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Roblox platform had insufficient content
controls and lacked user spending restrictions; (2) these
inadequate controls enabled younger Roblox users to play games with
inappropriate content and make excessive, unauthorized Robux,
Roblox's proprietary currency, purchases; (3) a material portion of
Roblox's bookings and revenue growth was due to these excessive,
unauthorized Robux purchases; (4) fourth quarter 2021 and 2022
bookings would be negatively impacted by Roblox's planned rollout
of enhanced parental controls; and (5) based on the foregoing,
Roblox's bookings and revenue growth was unsustainable throughout
the class period. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Roblox class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20661 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]
SECURTEST INC: Judge Tosses FCRA Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Securtest
Inc.'s proposed settlement of a class representative's individual
claims remains a stumbling block after Judge Richard Seeborg has
preliminarily rejected a proposed class action settlement two
times.
Regmon Hawkins alleged he and 1,579 other class members didn't
receive "appropriate written disclosures" for employment background
checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The settlement proposed
to Seeborg, of the US District Court for the Northern District of
California, provided that Hawkins wouldn't receive $50,000 in
resolution of his individual claims until the court approved a
$100,000 class settlement. [GN]
SELENE FINANCE: Dominguez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK S. DOMINGUEZ, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-06225 (N.D. Cal., December 1, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's systematic use of unlawful and unfair debt collection
practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff Dominguez asserts that the Defendant's Final Letters
contained empty threats of acceleration and foreclosure. These
letters were allegedly intended to coerce and intimidate borrowers,
including Plaintiff, into paying the entire default amount of the
loan, says the suit.
Selene is a servicer of mortgages for residential housing loans. It
earns money based upon a percentage of the funds that it collects
from consumers' mortgage payments as well as through the assessment
of late fees and other penalties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
SOUTH BAY GUNITE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIO GARCIA, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SOUTH BAY GUNITE INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-04511 (S.D. Tex., December
1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from South Bay Gunite Inc. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Garcia worked for SBG as a finisher from approximately
January 2021 until September 2023. Throughout his employment, SBG
paid Garcia under its illegal piece rate pay scheme, paying him a
set amount for each pool or spa he finished, and failed to pay him
overtime when he worked more than 40 hours in a week.
Based in Texas, SBG specializes in swimming pool construction.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Homeowners' Earthquake Class Action Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liz McDonald, writing for The Press, reports that an attempt to
launch a class action potentially affecting up to 9500 homeowners
with damage from the Canterbury earthquakes has been rejected by
the High Court.
The case was brought by Hoon Hay home owner Trevor Ressels over
extra costs he says were not paid when a claim for repairs to his
driveway and paths were settled. As a client of failed insurer AMI,
his claim was handled by Government-owned insurance settlement
company Southern Response.
Ressels, represented by insurance lawyer Grant Shand, sought to
have the court accept him as the representative plaintiff in a
class action. Shand said they will appeal the ruling.
Between 7500 and 9500 AMI policy holders are potentially affected
by the issue, which is at the centre of the case. Their repairs may
have involved "out of scope" items such as fences, swimming pools
and patios, as well as paths and driveways.
Ressels claims Southern Response misled him when it implied the
$16,875 sum he and his now late wife accepted was a full
settlement, and that it was in breach of the Fair Trading Act. He
believes the payout did not include added costs such as
professional design fees and contingencies.
Shand said in his submission to the court that the couple had been
unaware they had not been paid their full entitlement, which he
calculated at $22,461.
"Mr Ressels is elderly. He should not be having to fight Southern
Response for what he, and 9500 other home owners were, and are,
entitled to be paid."
After the Ressels' claim was settled in 2014, Southern Response
changed its practice to make express provision for added costs. The
company says those costs were included in earlier settlements
including the Ressels' but this was not explicitly stated at the
time.
The court ruling means Russels and other policy holders in the same
situation can only sue Southern Response individually, not as part
of a class action.
The court decision said it was not satisfied there were sufficient
common issues of fact among claimants affected to qualify the case
as a class action, and that some claimants might have a different
outcome by taking an individual case.
A previous attempt to launch a class action on the same issue was
made in 2021 by John Sneesby, also represented by Shand, but was
halted when the claimant settled with Southern Response
individually.
Shand said he would "certainly" lodge an appeal as he wanted to
secure the full payouts, plus interest, for the thousands he said
had been short changed.
"What Southern Response is trying to do it pick them off by paying
them less that they should be getting.
"That's why we want to make it a class representative action, so
there is some control and supervision over what happens."
He said the case was the "twin" of the Ross case, where a class
action led by Christchurch couple Brendan and Colleen Ross led to
large payouts to Southern Response claimants with damaged homes.
That action followed a court finding that Southern Response had
kept some repair costs hidden from homeowners and underpaid them.
[GN]
SPIRIT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Realty Income Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2022 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. (NYSE: SRC), relating to its proposed
sale to Realty Income Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, SRC
shareholders will receive 0.762 shares of RIC per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/spirit-realty-capital-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
ImmunoGen, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMGN), relating to its proposed sale to
AbbVie Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, IMGN shareholders
will receive $31.26 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/immunogen-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Patriot Transportation Holding, Inc. (Nasdaq: PATI), relating to
its proposed sale to United Petroleum Transports, Inc. Under the
terms of the agreement, PATI shareholders will receive $16.26 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/patriot-transportation-holding-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Rover Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ROVR), relating to its sale to
affiliates of Blackstone Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
ROVR shareholders will receive $11.00 in cash pers share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/rover-group-inc . It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates
lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in
Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
STEWART TITLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Biondi Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIRSTEN BIONDI, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEWART TITLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-021845 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., December 1,
2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff was employed by Stewart as an escrow employee. In
order to complete her duties, the Plaintiff was required to work in
excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not record
or compensate all hours that escrow employees work each workweek,
says the Plaintiff.
Stewart Title Company specializes in title insurance and related
services required for settlement by the real estate and mortgage
industries. It is one of the largest global title insurance
companies and underwriters in the industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
T/J INSPECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Farnes Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY FARNES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T/J INSPECTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-01100-PRW (W.D. Okla., December 1, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid compensation at time and a half owed for work in excess of
40 hours per workweek under Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a day rate pipeline inspector regularly
more than 40 hours a week. However, the Defendant Defendant never
paid Plaintiff or the day rate inspectors overtime for the hours
they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single week. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid him and
the day rate inspectors a Day Rate or flat amount for each day
worked without overtime compensation, says the Plaintiff.
Based in Oklahoma City, T/J Inspections, Inc. provides oil and gas
pipeline inspection and special services throughout the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff A. Taylor, Esq.
THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK
5613 N. Classen Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 286-1600
Facsimile: (405) 842-6132
TARGET CORP: Faces Up & Up Sunscreen False Advertising Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Target
Corp. falsely advertises that its Up & Up sunscreen is
"reef-conscious" when, in reality, it includes ingredients that are
harmful to coral reefs, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Annet Tivin claims Target's "reef-conscious" Up & Up
sunscreen contains chemicals that have been linked to causing harm
to coral reef ecosystems, and that the company does not label this
on the product.
"Nowhere on the labeling does the Product tell purchasers that its
inactive ingredients are inconsistent with 'protecting and
safeguarding' coral reefs, which is what they expect from a
'reef-conscious formula'," the Target class action states.
Tivin wants to represent a Florida class of consumers who have
purchased Target's Up & Up sunscreen that is marketed as "reef
conscious" during the statutes of limitations for each cause of
action alleged.
Target misleads consumers who are trying to be environmentally
conscious, class action says
Tivin argues Target is misleading consumers who are trying to be
environmentally conscious, while, at the same time, selling the
"reef-conscious" Up & Up sunscreen at a premium price that is
higher than other similar products represented in a "non-misleading
way."
"The labeling of the Product as a "reef-conscious formula" even
though its active and inactive ingredients do not "protect and
safeguard" coral reefs, results in its "misbranding," because it
misleads consumers," the Target class action states.
Tivin claims Target is guilty of fraud and of violating the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and a Florida statute
involving false and misleading advertising.
The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory
relief along with an award of monetary damages for herself and all
class members.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Target and
skincare company Fruit of the Earth in 2021 by a consumer arguing
they manufactured and sold Up & Up sunscreens that were falsely
advertised as being safe for coral reefs.
Have you purchased Target's Up & Up sunscreen? Let us know in the
comments
The plaintiff is represented by William Wright of The Wright Law
Office PA and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC.
The Target sunscreen class action lawsuit is Tivin v. Target Corp.,
Case No. 0:23-cv-62245, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. [GN]
VISA INC: Judge Wants Scam Class Suit Settlement Site Be Shut Down
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Christian J. Palacios, Esq., of
Duane Morris, disclosed that U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph
Marutollo's recent report and recommendation -- a novel order in
the context of class action settlements -- in the proceeding
captioned In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-MD-01720, Doc. No. 9009
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2023), highlights the risks associated with
class action claims websites and the potential for bad actors to
create fraudulent web pages to mislead claimants. Corporate
defendants should take care to monitor online activity following
the creation of a court-authorized settlement website in order to
protect any class-wide settlement and claimants against potential
fraudsters. Indeed, in a world where scammers are becoming
increasingly more sophisticated through the use of technology,
class action settlement websites may be the next frontier in the
battle against cybercrime.
Background
After 15 years of contentious litigation, Visa and MasterCard
settled a putative class action for $5.6 billion to resolve
allegations that the credit card companies violated federal and
state antitrust laws resulting in over 12 million merchants
allegedly paying excessive fees to Visa and MasterCard. As is
typical in class actions of this size, a court-authorized
settlement website was created to accept claim submissions and
provide claimants with details regarding the settlement agreement.
On November 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Marutollo recommended that
the Court order the website "settlement2023.org" (and any affiliate
website) be taken down, as the operators of the Settlement2023.org
entity, who remain unknown, were attempting to deceive putative
class members into using the site through various schemes,
including using fake voicemails from rap artist Snoop Dogg to
convince users of its validity. According to Magistrate Judge
Marutollo's report, although the scam website ceased operation on
November 21, 2023, it was unclear if other webpages remained open
under different domain names that were also operated by the
Settlement2023.org entity.
The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation And Report
In addition to recommending the Court issue an order to take down
of any and all remaining webpages that attempt to mimic the
court-authorized settlement website, Magistrate Judge Marutollo
also recommended that the owners and operators of the
Settlement2023.org entity be required to identify themselves, and
provide a list of all class members that signed up for its
services, as well as give notice to would-be customers that any
contract they entered into with the entity was now void. Finally,
the Magistrate Judge requested that the Court be notified of any
newly-detected websites and recommended that the court-authorized
website be updated to alert those who may have been deceived by the
settlement2023.org website.
Implications
Cybercriminals continue to capitalize on advances in technology to
launch misinformation campaigns, and large class action settlements
are in the cross-hairs of this emerging threat. Therefore, it is
imperative that plaintiff and defendant-side representatives alike
remain vigilant to protect class members from deception and
safeguard the integrity of the class action settlement process.
[GN]
WALT DISNEY: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Katie Arcieri, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walt Disney
Co. moved to dismiss a proposed class action brought by TV
streamers who allege the entertainment conglomerate violated
antitrust laws through agreements that led to subscription price
hikes.
The plaintiffs, YouTube and DirecTV subscribers, failed to
sufficiently allege Disney's agreements unreasonably restrained
trade, Disney said in its motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on Dec. 1 in the US District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Disney's control of streaming giant Hulu and ESPN has allowed it to
negotiate contracts for the sports network and related channels,
resulting in significant power over TV streaming market prices, the
plaintiffs allege. [GN]
WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Keene Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gerald Keene, an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. WESCO INTERNATIONAL INC., a California
corporation; ANIXTER INC., a Delaware corporation, ANIXTER
INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California limited liability company; EXPRESS
SERVICES, INC., a Colorado Corporation; and does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CU23-04283 was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of Solano, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 27, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00988.
The Complaint alleges ten claims for relief, including: failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; waiting time
penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages;
failure to indemnify; violations of Labor Code; and unfair
competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
ASEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com
- and -
Lilah J. Wylde, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
Email: lwylde@seyfarth.com
WEST VIRGINIA: Wants Class Action Over Jail Conditions Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Allen Adams, writing for The Intelligencer, reports that
attorneys for Gov. Jim Justice, trying to make the case why he
should be dismissed from a federal class action lawsuit over
conditions in West Virginia's jails and prisons, argued that
inmates are trying to put the federal courts in charge of the
state's correctional system.
In a reply filed Dec. 1 supporting a motion to dismiss Justice from
a class action lawsuit filed in August by attorneys representing
inmates across the entire spectrum of the state's correctional
system, the governor argues the lawsuit is an attempt to strip
oversight by the state of its jails, prisons and juvenile centers.
"Plaintiffs are attempting to oversee both the administration and
public funding of all state correctional institutions in West
Virginia by employing the power of the federal court as the
ultimate superintendent," wrote Michael Hissam, an attorney
representing Justice. "For many reasons, the claim alleged against
the Governor in his official capacity is defective as a matter of
law and must be dismissed."
The class action lawsuit filed Aug. 8 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia against Justice and
Department of Homeland Security Cabinet Secretary Mark Sorsaia
accuses the state of understaffing, overcrowding and delays of
deferred maintenance for facilities.
The state is accused of violating the Eighth Amendment
constitutional rights of inmates against cruel and unusual
punishment.
The inmates are seeking a ruling in their favor and an order to
require the state to spend no less than $330 million on staffing
and maintenance for the state's entire system of 11 prisons, 10
regional jails, 10 juvenile centers and three work-release sites
with available funds or by submitting appropriations bills between
now and the next legislative session beginning in January.
Both Sorsaia, whose department oversees the Division of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, and Justice filed motions in November seeking
dismissal of the federal lawsuit. In his follow-up reply on behalf
of Justice, Hissam said the legal remedy being sought by the
inmates violates the state's sovereign immunity and separation of
powers between the state and federal government.
Hissam argued any federal order either requiring Justice to grant
reprieves or paroles to alleviate jail and prison overcrowding
would be impossible because federal courts have no authority over
what he called "discretionary actions" by state officials.
"…The prospect of relying on a state governor's discretionary
pardon or commutation power to exercise the federal judicial power
over the state to ease overcrowding raises serious federalism and
separation of powers concerns, as well as the question of whether
the scope of the federal judicial power even includes the authority
to order a State's governor to issue mass pardons or commutations,"
Hissam wrote.
Hissam also argued that while the governor has the authority to set
revenue estimates upon which state budgets are based, then present
a proposed budget to the Legislature, Justice's does not have
unilateral power over what that budget looks like once it is passed
by the Legislature. While the governor can propose how funds are
appropriated, it is the Legislature that has power of the purse.
"Plaintiffs do not dispute that the governor cannot appropriate
funds. Nor do they appear to defend their request that this court
order the governor to appropriate funds himself. Rather, plaintiffs
only rely on the governor's power to propose the appropriation of
funds," Hissam wrote. "But the act of proposing the spending of
funds to the Legislature (all that the governor can do in this
regard) does not remedy the wrongs as alleged by Plaintiffs."
The case was filed on behalf of Thomas Sheppheard, an inmate at Mt.
Olive Correctional Complex in Fayette County; Tyler Randall, an
inmate at the Southwestern Regional Jail in Logan County; and an
unnamed juvenile at the Donald R. Kuhn Juvenile Center in Boone
County. The inmates are presented by several law firms led by New
Taylor and Associates. [GN]
WESTERN UNION: Court Tosses Radulescu Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IBOLYA RADULESCU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
WESTERN UNION COMPANY; and WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03009-DDD-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D.
Domenico entered an order denying motion for class certification:
The class seeks recompense for those "whose money went unredeemed
and was not returned within 60 days."
She moves to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of all customers of Defendants "who sent
money using Western Union's money transfer services between January
1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose money went unredeemed and was
not returned within 60 days, and who were not members of the
Settlement Class in [Tennille v. Western Union Co., No.
1:09-cv-00938-JLK (D. Colo)]."
Plaintiff moves to certify a class action challenging this process.
The proposed class would be as follows:
-- Rule 23 (b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class:
"All persons and entities wherever they reside in the United
States who sent money using Western Union's money transfer
services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose
money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days, and
who
were not members of the Settlement Class in the Tennille
Action;"
-- Rule 23 (b)(3) State Sub-Class(es):
a. All persons and entities who are residents of Colorado and
who
sent money using Western Union's money transfer services
between
January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose money went
unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days, and who were
not
members of the Settlement Class in the Tennille Action.
b. All persons and entities who are residents of Washington and
who
sent money using Western Union's money transfer services
between
January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose money went
unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days, and who were
not
members of the Settlement Class in the Tennille Action.
Western Union is an American multinational financial services
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gu4SIs at no extra charge.[CC]
WESTJET AIRLINES: Application to Amend Class Definition Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emond Harnden disclosed that WestJet's application to amend the
class definition to have the class period end on July 31, 2018 is
dismissed. The class definition is amended to provide that the
class period ends on February 28, 2021.
The case is Lewis v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2023 BCSC 1921.
The class action was brought against WestJet alleging systemic
breach of employment contracts with flight attendants.
WestJet filed an application under British Columbia's Class
Proceedings Act to amend the class definition contained in the
Certification Order.
WestJet was seeking to have the class period end on July 31, 2018,
when CUPE was certified as bargaining agent for the flight
attendants.
Alternatively, WestJet was seeking to have the class period end
upon ratification of the first collective agreement.
The court held that it was not plain and obvious that its
jurisdiction to determine class members' contractual claims during
the period from certification to ratification was ousted by the
ratification of the collective agreement.
The application was dismissed. [GN]
WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Suit Over Flex Commissions
-------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in November 7, 2023, that a
class action commenced against Westpac and St. George Finance
Limited (SGF) on 15 July 2020, in the Supreme Court of Victoria
(Australia) in relation to flex commissions paid to auto dealers
from 1 March 2013 to 31 October 2018 is currently ongoing.
This proceeding is one of three class actions commenced against a
number of lenders in the auto finance industry. It is alleged that
Westpac and SGF are liable for the unfair conduct of dealers acting
as credit representatives and engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct. The damages sought are unspecified. Westpac and SGF are
defending the proceedings. Westpac no longer pays flex commissions
following an industry wide ban issued by ASIC on 1 November 2018.
Westpac Banking Corporation is an Australian multinational banking
and financial services company headquartered in Sydney, New South
Wales.
WHITE WALKER LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Walker, LLC.
The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. White Walker, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08834 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
White Walker Logistics LLC is a licensed and DOT registred trucking
company running freight hauling business from Masontown,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
WHITEFIELD: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Trowell
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMZIDDIN S. TROWELL, v.
WHITEFIELD, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09789-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management:
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by
the Court.
Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is
the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2
conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests
or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior
to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely.
In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices, letters and lettermotions are limited to four pages,
exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and
lettermotions filed via ECF are required only if the filing
contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be
delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the
time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the
attachments.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uRKJcP at no extra charge.[CC]
[*] Housing Sector Outlook Expected to Improve in 2024 Amid Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holden Lewis, writing for NerdWallet, reports that attention, home
buyers, homeowners and renters: 2024 might treat you more kindly
than 2023 did.
The housing market was downright hostile in 2023. The 30-year
mortgage rate rose from about 6% in February to 8% in October. The
median home price peaked above $400,000. Home affordability
plunged.
2024 will bring lower mortgage rates, forecasters predict. If
they're right, home buyers will gain purchasing power. "It'll be
nice to move past the point where we're not setting new records for
unaffordability," says Danielle Hale, chief economist for
Realtor.com.
If optimistic forecasts are accurate, more homeowners might list
their homes for sale in 2024, even if it means giving up their low
mortgage rates. And renters might get some relief too.
Here are mortgage and housing trends to watch for in 2024.
Mortgage rates should trend a little lower
Fannie Mae, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National
Association of Realtors all predict that the 30-year mortgage rate
will fall to below 7% in the second half of 2024.
Daryl Fairweather, chief economist for Redfin, agrees that rates
will fall, but she cautions that the decline won't be smooth. "I
think there will be swings," she says. "And the swings will be
large, both up and down. But the trend will be, on average, down."
A couple of things to keep in mind. First, the three organizations
failed to forecast the rise in mortgage rates in 2023. Second, even
if they're correct about rates falling in 2024, they still predict
that the 30-year mortgage will end the year above 6%. They're not
saying that rates will fall to the sub-4% levels seen from 2019 and
into 2022.
"I think the era of very low interest rates was just like a
once-in-a-generation thing to happen," says Dave Liniger, who
co-founded Re/Max Holdings, a real estate franchiser, two
generations ago in 1973. "And I just don't see it going back."
But home prices won't fall much, if at all
If you hope for plunging prices, you're probably not going to get
your wish in 2024.
If prices fall — and that's a big "if" — they won't decline
much, because the market has reached a persistent equilibrium: Few
homes were on the market toward the end of 2023, and buyers were
deterred by high interest rates. The standoff is likely to
continue. Home prices won't fall until buyers are outnumbered by
sellers.
"We just have very, very few sellers," said Mike Simonsen,
president of real estate analytics firm Altos Research, in a video
presentation on Oct. 23. "Declining home prices probably require
that supply-and-demand imbalance, and what we have is really a
balance. There's a balance between low demand and low supply."
If lower rates revive demand, won't that drive prices higher?
Economic theory says yes. But human behavior is more complex than
economic theory.
"In general, you would expect that if mortgage rates fall, it
creates more affordability and that should kind of boost housing
demand, which might then push prices back up," Hale says. "I don't
expect that we're going to see that trend in 2024."
Why not? Affordability, Hale says. Buyers' finances are already
stretched to the limit, so there won't be much room for home prices
to rise, even if mortgage rates fall.
More new construction of single-family homes
Until more houses hit the market, prices don't have much room to
move down.
Help is on the way. Builders are applying for more permits to
construct single-family houses. They sought 968,000 permits in
October at a seasonally adjusted annual rate, the most since May
2022. When those houses are completed, they'll add to the total
housing supply.
And it's about time for more single-family houses to get built,
says Erin Sykes, chief economist for Nest Seekers International, a
multinational real estate brokerage. "We've had this ongoing
conversation about the shortage of housing, which is true,
generally speaking," she says, "but it's actually a shortage with
more of an asterisk. We have an oversupply of multifamily and a
shortage of single-family."
Renters might get a break
Rents skyrocketed starting in 2021, prompting developers to build
apartments. As those units are completed, rents are going down a
tiny bit, according to Realtor.com's monthly rental report.
The median asking rent of $1,747 in September was $5 less than in
August, and $29 less than the peak in July 2022, according to the
report co-written by Jiayi Xu and Hale. Rents are going down
because of an apartment construction spree. In the first 10 months
of 2023, builders had completed 361,000 multifamily units, a 24%
increase over the same period a year earlier.
And there's more where that's coming from: More than 980,000
multifamily units were under construction in October. The vast
majority are apartments, and many of them will be ready for
occupancy by the end of 2024. "That is going to help bring rents to
a slightly more affordable place," Hale says.
Rate lock-in may begin to ease
For every 20 homes that were for sale at the end of October 2019,
just 13 were for sale in October 2023. This decline is blamed on a
phenomenon called rate lock-in.
Rate lock-in occurred as people bought homes, or refinanced their
mortgages, when mortgage rates were low — often below 4% — in
2020 and 2021. Those homeowners are reluctant to sell their homes
and give up those low rates. They are locked in.
Economists believe two factors — time and falling rates — are
the keys. "As mortgage rates come down, as homeowners build equity,
I think we'll start to see the lock-in effect abate," Hale says.
More people will list their homes for sale, giving buyers more
houses to choose from and relieving some of the upward pressure on
prices. This will be a multi-year process.
Lawsuits could change how agents are paid
Class-action lawsuits against the National Association of Realtors
and some real estate brokerages could shake up the way real estate
agents are paid, potentially leading to significant changes in the
way homes are bought and sold.
On Oct. 31, a federal jury in Kansas City, Missouri, decided that
the NAR had imposed anticompetitive rules that required home
sellers to pay nonnegotiable, excessive commissions to buyer's
agents. The jury assessed damages of close to $1.8 billion against
NAR and two co-defendant brokerages; the NAR has said it will
appeal. (Two brokerages settled before trial for a combined total
of $138.5 million in damages.)
Meanwhile, a similar antitrust case is expected to begin in a
federal court in Illinois in 2024, and other class-action suits
have been filed in other states. Home sellers, buyers and real
estate agents might end up conducting transactions differently,
depending on how these cases are decided in 2024 and beyond.
There's much uncertainty about 2024, including the outcomes of
those lawsuits. But all in all, the outlook is for an improvement
over 2023. [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 ***