/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231222.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 22, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 256
Headlines
AKUMIN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ontario
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by April 1, 2024
ASHFORD INC: Faces Labor Suit Over Rest Period
BROOKLYN PREMIER: Kornmann Sues Over Unprotected Medical Info
CANADA: Justice for Migrant Workers Sue Over Employment Insurance
CANADA: RCMP Loses Bid to Appeal Class Action Certification
CENTERPLATE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Without Prejudice
CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Kolb and Tang Suits Moved to C.D. California
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Bonus Bet Ad
EARGO INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Patient Square Sale
EAST RIVER: Patients File Class Action Following Cyberattack
ESTEE LAUDER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 5
FRED HUTCHINSON: Faces Class Action Following Data Breach
GLENCORE PLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence in Safety
GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Compel Arbitration of Users' Claims
HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI to End Rehab Stays
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Wins Property Tax Assessment Class Action
JOHN DEERE: Must Face Antitrust Class Action, Court Rules
KNIX WEAR: Settles PFAS Class Action for $1.4 Million
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Judge Asked to Publish Info in CPAP Suit Deal
KROGER CO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Mislabeled Smoked Gouda
LA FONDA DELI: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LENSCRAFTERS INC: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 26
LIFELABS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on April 6
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Morris Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
LINKEDIN CORP: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Action for $6.75MM
LIVE NATION: Taylor Swift Fan Drops Antitrust Class Action
LOAN DEPOT: Faces Class Actions Over Deceptive Business Practices
MAT ASPHALT: Judge Approves $1.2MM Deal in Noxious Odor Class Suit
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Edge Retirement Accounts
META PLATFORMS: RCSD Joins Class Suit Over Social Media Addiction
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for February 5
MINOL INC: Dematties Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
MOBILE PHLEBOTOMY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Rayford Claims
MONSANTO CO: Ontario Court Certifies Roundup Class Action
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Challenges Subscription List Class Action
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: Faces Labor Class Action in California
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: 9th Circuit Panel Revives False Ad Class Action
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class of CFI Waiver Members Certified in Fitzmorris
NEW ZEALAND: Christchurch High Court OKs Suit Over Land Damage
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Metamucil False Advertising Class Action
R.H. PETERSON: Faces Mancia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Use of Email Tracking Tools
SELFDISRUPT LLC: Harris Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Alleges Supra-Competitive Prices, Conspiracy
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 2
TENDER & TRUE PET: Kouyoumdjian Suit Removed to C.D. California
TENET HEALTHCARE: Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
TOMOCREDIT INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Gera Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
UNION BANK AND TRUST: Bender Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
UNION INSTITUTE: Richard-Allerdyce Sues Over Unpaid Wages
UNION PACIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Contamination
UNITED STATES: Parks Sues Over Air Marshals' Race Discrimination
UNITED STATES: VA Must Face Homeless Disabled Veterans' Suit
USAA CASUALTY: MSP Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade County State Court
WAITR HOLDINGS: Breach of Contract Suit Remanded to W.D. La.
WAITR HOLDINGS: Faces False Advertising Suit in Minnesota Court
WALMART INC: Defends Class Suit Over Mislabeled Organic Raw Honey
WASHINGTON, DC: Court Stays M.J. Class Suit in Interim
WELLTOK INC: Meyer Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
WEST VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Hear Report on Correctional System
WOODSIDE ENERGY: Greenpeace Files Emissions Class Action Suit
[*] Class Suit Filed in Quebec Over Salmonella in Cantaloupes
[*] Data Breach Class Actions Up in 2023, Study Shows
[*] Firefighter Seeks Review of Ohio Class Vacatur in PFAS Action
[*] Village of Belgium Opts Out of PFAs Class Action Settlement
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,060 PI Lawsuits as of Oct. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Pushing to Settle Asbestos Related Talc Cases
*********
AKUMIN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akumin Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 12, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from securities the class suit in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
On December 20, 2021, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action claim with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers alleging violations of Securities Act (Ontario), negligent
misrepresentation and other related claims relating to the
restatement of the Company's financial statements that were filed
in 2021.
On February 17, 2023, the plaintiff delivered a motion record for
certification and for leave to commence action under Part XXIII.1
of the Securities Act (Ontario).
The Company plans to defend the claim and the motion.
Akumin Inc. provides outpatient radiology and oncology services to
health systems, hospitals, physician groups, and patients all
across the country.
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA CARLISLE, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
a Delaware limited liability corporation; AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06856-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file
stipulation to continue class certification motion deadlines:
1. The last day to file Plaintiff's motion April 29, 2024
for class certification shall be
continued from February 27, 2024 to:
2. The last day to file the Defendants' May 27, 2024
opposition to motion for class
certification shall be continued
from March 12, 2024 to:
3. The last day to file Plaintiff's reply June 10, 2024
brief in support of motion for class
certification shall be continued from
March 19, 2024 to:
4. The class certification hearing shall June 25, 2024
be continued from April 9, 2024 to:
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48fDXvT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
Max W. Gavron, Esq.
Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
kagnew@diversitylaw.com
nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com
mgavron@diversitylaw.com
ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com
- and -
Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
Tatiana Avakian, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
E-mail: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com
tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com
- and -
Peter M. Hart, Esq.
Ashlie E. Fox, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 478-5789
Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com
ashlie.fox.loph@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Katya N. Abelsky, Esq.
Max Fischer, Esq.
Tuyet T. Nguyen Lu, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
katya.abelsky@morganlewis.com
max.fischer@morganlewis.com
tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by April 1, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alec Plotts, Marc Caine,
and Leticia Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-04529-CJC-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered an order that Plaintiffs shall have until April 1, 2024, to
file their motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48uxi15 at no extra charge.[CC]
ASHFORD INC: Faces Labor Suit Over Rest Period
-----------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 13, 2023, that a December 20, 2016
class action lawsuit filed against one of the company's
subsidiaries in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain
California employment laws is currently ongoing.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were
allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of a previous written
policy requiring employees to stay on premises during rest breaks
and a derivative class of non-exempt former employees who were not
paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of
the class, however, the total number of employees in the class has
not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time
that discovery has concluded.
In May of 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from
the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained,
dismissed, or the class decertified. The trial court set a due date
of August 7, 2023 for the briefs. After submission of the briefs,
the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the
court to rule upon.
Ashford Inc., a Nevada corporation, is an alternative asset
management company with a portfolio of strategic operating
businesses that provides products and services primarily to clients
in the real estate and hospitality industries, including Ashford
Hospitality Trust, Inc. and Braemar Hotels and Resorts, Inc.
BROOKLYN PREMIER: Kornmann Sues Over Unprotected Medical Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUDOLPH KORNMANN and DAVID ASEKOFF, on behalf of themselves & all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROOKLYN PREMIER
ORTHOPEDICS AND PAIN MANAGEMENT PLLC d/b/a BROOKLYN PREMIER
ORTHOPEDICS, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08761 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29,
2023) is a class action arising out of the recent, targeted
cyberattack and data breach where third-party criminals retrieved
and exfiltrated personal data from Defendant's network resulting in
unauthorized access to highly sensitive medical data of Plaintiffs,
and, according to BPO, at least 48,000 Class Members.
According to the data breach notice sent to Plaintiffs, on or about
October 5, 2023, BPO learned that an unauthorized entity had gained
access to patient information on one of its computer servers. In
response, Defendant launched an investigation and notified law
enforcement. BPO's investigation revealed that an unauthorized
party had access to certain patient files on the server on an
undisclosed date.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and Class Members are victims
of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cybersecurity measures.
Specifically, Plaintiffs and Class Members trusted Defendant with
their private information but Defendant betrayed that trust,
including by failing to properly use up-to-date security practices
and measures to prevent the data breach, and the exfiltration and
theft of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive private
information. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs and Class
Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending
harm. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have and will continue to
suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not
limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses and anxiety over the
misuse of their private information, says the suit.
Brooklyn Premier Orthopedics and Pain Management PLLC is an
orthopedic and pain management center with its headquarters in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
Elena A. Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
david@almeidalawgroup.com
elena@almeidalawgroup.com
CANADA: Justice for Migrant Workers Sue Over Employment Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Clark, writing for Caribbean National Weekly, reports that
Justice for Migrant Workers Canada has initiated a groundbreaking
class action lawsuit, targeting a multimillion-dollar settlement to
secure the rights of thousands of migrant farm workers, including
Jamaicans.
The lawsuit aims to break barriers hindering these laborers from
their rightful access to the Canadian employment insurance system,
despite their regular benefits.
Legal pursuit for damages and declaration of rights
Leading the legal battle, Attorney-at-law Shane Martinez asserts
that the core objective of this legal action is to restore justice
to the farm workers.
According to Martinez, seeking both damages and a declaration, the
lawsuit calls for substantial general damages amounting to $500
million Canadian.
These damages are pursued for the restitution and discouragement
caused by violations of Section 7 and Section 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 7 pertains to the security of individuals, while Section 15
safeguards people against discrimination on specific grounds.
Challenging an "unjustly enriched" system
In addition to monetary claims, the migrant workers are also
seeking a declaration from the court.
They aim to challenge the existing system, created and maintained
by the government, which has allegedly led to unjust enrichment.
Their argument is rooted in the belief that this system goes
against the principles enshrined in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Implications beyond borders
Emphasizing the significance of the lawsuit, Martinez highlights
its implications on a broader scale.
He notes that this legal claim not only delves into Canadian law
but also extends its reach to international law, encompassing
conventions related to the rights of migrant farm workers and
laborers worldwide.
He added that this case merits close attention from the Jamaican
government, as it holds the potential to impact countless Jamaican
citizens if approved as a class action by the Canadian courts.
Bridging the benefits gap
Chris Ramsaroop, the organizer behind Justice for Migrant Workers
Canada, underscores the disparities between Canadian farm workers
and their migrant counterparts.
While Canadian farm workers have access to benefits denied to
migrants, Ramsaroop argues that it is only equitable for returning
Jamaican and Caribbean migrant workers, comprising roughly 80 per
cent of the workforce, to access these benefits upon their return
to their home countries. [GN]
CANADA: RCMP Loses Bid to Appeal Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Morritt-Jacobs, writing for APTN, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada turned down a request from the federal
government to appeal the certification of a class action lawsuit
against members of the RCMP.
The class action was launched in 2018 and involves plaintiffs in
three territories who say they were victims of excessive force by
members of the Mounties.
The claims alleges "systemic racism and racist treatment of the
Indigenous population, who were arrested, detained or held in
custody," according to a statement from Steven Cooper, one of the
lawyers involved.
Canada appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the certification
of the class action filed in federal court.
The high court doesn't explain why it won't hear a case.
"This is a victory in the pursuit of justice, but it is merely the
end of the beginning," said Cooper. "The RCMP, while admitting
their own malfeasance, have shown a singular inability to alter
their own bad behavior.
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has echoed the concerns of multiple
senior representatives of the RCMP and yet, to date, has been
unable to effect change. Society demands reconciliation and
reconciliation requires acknowledgment and validation of the
complaints made."
Two cases have been filed by Cooper and his partners and certified
to proceed as class actions against the RCMP. There is also a
similar case filed in Vancouver in 2020 "covering many of the same
issues," and the rest of the country.
According to Cooper, the dismissal by the court on Dec. 14 paves
the way for all the lawsuits to proceed.
"There isn't going to be an overhaul of the system, the thing to be
is the spark," Cooper said. "The other foundational principles
behind class action is behavior modification, and so it's rare to
have such consistent acknowledgment of liability on the part of a
national institution like we have here."
It's welcome news for the Nasogaluak family -- the main plaintiffs
in the case.
"They did do an investigation but it was the cops investigating
cops," said Diane Nasogaluak, mother of the lead plaintiff, Joe
David Nasogaluiak. "I was glad my husband knew a lawyer and so we
called him Alan Regal who said after the investigation is done he
said if you are not pleased with it then to give him a call.
"I told them all I want is justice for my son and they said you
should be happy we dropped those charges, they laid a bunch of
charges on him and he was only 15 he didn't do anything, all he did
was sitting there driving around with his friends."
Joe David was arrested in 2017. He was 15 at the time. He alleges
that two officers in Tuktoyaktuk assaulted, tasered, choked and
hurled racial slurs at him.
"After all this happened he tried to go back to school, but one day
they were having RCMP talk there and JD just walked out of school,
he didn't feel safe or comfortable with them there going into his
classroom talking about their job," Diane Nasogaluak said.
Joe David Nasogaluak who is now 21, has been on a healing journey,
connecting with his culture, singing, drumming and dog mushing.
The class action was launched on behalf of all First Nations, Inuit
and Metis people in Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon who
allege they were harmed by unnecessary force by the RCMP.
"If any message were to be derived by the dismissal of the leave
application, it's that these types of claims will be allowed to
proceed collectively because they are the most productive use of
judicial resources and they allow far greater access to justice,
which are two of the founding principles of class action
proceedings," said Cooper.
The Nasogaluak family wants systemic institutional and cultural
change for policing in Canada.
"Since I was young I was always scared of cops," Diane said. "I
feared for my family. Maybe it was good for our family to change
the law to change the future for my grandkids and everyone else in
the north and wherever else because it has been going on for
generations and generations."
According to Cooper, there are roughly 1,000 names on the class
action across the three territories. [GN]
CENTERPLATE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class
action against Centerplate Inc. and Sodexo Inc. was dismissed
without prejudice by a federal court at the request of the parties
so the claims can be settled in a companion case in California
state court.
Looking at the interaction between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1), which deals with dismissals, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e),
which deals with a court's pre-certification review of voluntary
dismissals of class actions, the opinion by Judge Janis L.
Sammartino, of the US District Court for the Southern District of
California, said the courts have no role in voluntary dismissals.
[GN]
CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Kolb and Tang Suits Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge David L. Horan of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the Defendants'
motion to transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California the lawsuits titled NICOLE KOLB, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONIFER
VALUE-BASED CARE, LLC, CONIFER HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, CONIFER
REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Lead Case No. 3:23-cv-744-E-BN (N.D. Tex.). WILLIAM
TANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CONIFER VALUE-BASED CARE, LLC, CONIFER HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, LLC, CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Consolidated Case No.
3:23-cv-870-E-BN (N.D. Tex.).
The case has been referred to Judge Horan for pretrial management
under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and a standing order of reference
from United States District Judge Ada Brown.
Defendants Conifer Health Solutions LLC, Conifer Revenue Cycle
Solutions LLC, Conifer Value-Based Care LLC, and Tenet Healthcare
Corporation filed a motion to transfer this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the first-to-file doctrine and a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs
Nicole Kolb and William Tang filed responses to both motions, and
the Defendants filed replies to both responses.
For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Court grants Tenet Health's motion to transfer under the
first-to-file doctrine and transfers the consolidated case to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
motion to dismiss will remain pending for consideration in the
Central District of California.
The case concerns the Defendants' alleged data breach. Defendant
Tenet Healthcare ("Tenet") is the "parent company" of Defendants
Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions LLC ("Conifer Revenue"), Conifer
Health Solutions LLC ("Conifer Health"), and Conifer Value-Based
Care LLC ("Conifer Value"), together ("Tenet Health"). The
Defendants provide revenue support and care solutions to hospitals
and healthcare systems. Because of their work, the Defendants store
sensitive information about their clients' patients.
Plaintiffs Nicole Kolb and William Tang allege that a data breach
occurred on Jan. 20, 2022, exposing their sensitive information.
The Defendants did not discover the breach until April 14, 2022,
and notified their client healthcare providers on Aug. 12, 2022.
The Plaintiffs received notice on or about Sept. 30, 2023.
In addition to this case, Tenet Health's motion concerns another
class action lawsuit filed against Conifer Revenue Cycle LLC in
California Superior Court and removed to Central District of
California. That case, Morales v. Conifer Revenue Cycle Sols., LLC,
No. 2:23-cv-1987 (C.D. Cal.), is ongoing.
The Morales case, filed Oct. 6, 2022, also concerns the January
2022 data breach. The Morales case alleges negligence, negligence
per se, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, violation
of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
violation of California security notification laws ("CRA"),
violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. Morales defines
the putative class as: "All person to whom Conifer sent a letter,
dated September 30, 2022, entitled 'Notice of Data Breach,' signed
"Dustin Kellner[,] Conifer Privacy Officer[.]"
Plaintiff Nicole Kolb filed the present case against the Defendants
on April 7, 2023. William Tang (in Case No. 3:23-cv-870-E-BN) and
Nicole Kolb consolidated their cases through Kolb's unopposed
motion on May 12, 2023. They allege negligence, negligence per se,
invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, violation of California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, violation of
California's Consumer Records Act, and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.
The Kolb class is defined as: "All individuals residing in the
United States whose Personally Identifiable Information/Personal
Health Information (PII/PHI) was compromised in the Data Breach
discovered by Defendants in January 2022."
On Oct. 12, 2023, Tenet Health filed this Motion to Transfer the
Kolb case to the Central District of California. The Defendants
also filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Defendants also filed a motion
to stay pending resolution of the above-mentioned motions, which
the Court granted.
After reviewing the Kolb and Morales complaints, the parties'
arguments, and the law, the Court finds that there is substantive
overlap between the two lawsuits. Because Morales was filed first,
the Court will transfer the action to the Central District of
California.
Judge Horan explains that there is substantial overlap in the
parties and substantive issues in Kolb and Morales. Tenet Health
asserts that there is substantial overlap because the Plaintiffs
are putative members of the Morales class, the Defendants in both
lawsuits are related, and the critical issues are "virtually
identical" between the cases.
The Plaintiffs contend that the lawsuits do not substantially
overlap because the first-to-file rule is inappropriate for certain
class actions, the class sizes are different, the Defendants are
different, and the causes of action are different. But the
Plaintiffs' arguments fail to persuade the Court that the motion to
transfer should be denied.
As Tenet Health persuasively argues, Judge Horan opines that the
Named Plaintiffs (Kolb and Tang) appear to themselves fit in the
Morales class definition. While the amended complaint does not
attach the letter that the Named Plaintiffs received, Tang and Kolb
are both California residents, who were notified on or about Sept.
30, 2022, of the data breach. The Plaintiffs' being members of the
Morales case -- as they appear likely to be -- would also weigh in
favor of transferring the case.
The Court also agrees with Tenet Healthcare that the causes of
action in the cases substantially overlap. Both complaints allege
violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, violations of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, violations
of the California Business Code, violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, and allege negligence and negligence per se.
Consistent with the first-to-file doctrine, Judge Horan holds that
the motion to dismiss should remain pending in the first-filed
court. Because there is a related suit pending in the first-filed
court, and the Court had determined the case should be transferred
to the Central District of California, Judge Horan will uphold the
principle of comity by deferring ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Transfer
Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule and orders that these
consolidated cases be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 13. 2023, to
allow any party to file an objection to Judge Brown within 14 days
after being served with a copy of this order.
If an objection is filed, this order of transfer is stayed pending
further order of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4zj8tye9from
PacerMonitor.com.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Bonus Bet Ad
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Evans, writing for Legal Sport Report, reports that DraftKings
is under fire because of allegedly "unfair and deceptive" bonus bet
advertising.
The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) announced a
class-action lawsuit against DraftKings and its promotional
strategy. The organization filed the suit in Massachusetts's
Middlesex Superior Court on behalf of two Massachusetts bettors,
Shane Harris and Melissa Scanlon.
The complaint claims the operator misleads customers into believing
they receive a $1,000 bonus after depositing money into an
account.
"Shane and Melissa are typical of many thousands of people in
Massachusetts who were misled by the bonus offer and would not have
signed up had they understood DraftKings' unfair and deceptive
requirements," PHAI Executive Director Mark Gottlieb said in a
release.
Basis of DraftKings lawsuit
The DraftKings $1,000 bonus bet offer requires customers to deposit
$5,000 into an account and wager $25,000 within 90 days. The
complaint outlines a bettor would have to wager more than $276 per
day for three months to qualify for the full bonus.
Customers also must use the bonus as wagers and cannot withdraw
them as cash.
The complaint alleges, "DraftKings knew, or should have known, that
its advertisement and promotion was deceptive to their target
customers, who were new to sports betting and were extremely
unlikely to understand the gambling lingo in the fine print."
Plantiff famous for tobacco lawsuits
The PHAI is based at the Northeastern University School of Law in
Boston. One of the organization's leaders, Northeastern University
Distinguished Professor of Law Richard Daynard, was part of a
lawsuit against big tobacco for its health risks in the 1980s.
Now, Daynard claims DraftKings is aware its product is prone to
addiction.
"Online gambling is creating a public health disaster with
increasingly addictive products right before our eyes," Daynard
said in a release. "In fact, massive advertising using unfair and
deceptive promotions to hook customers on an addictive product
bears an uncanny similarity to what the cigarette companies used to
get away with."
DraftKings plans to fight lawsuit
DraftKings plans to "vigorously defend" itself against the
allegations, according to a spokesperson.
"As a customer-first organization, DraftKings takes consumer
protection and responsible gaming seriously," DraftKings said in a
statement to LSR. "Regrettably, the institute ignored our multiple
attempts to engage in an in-person dialogue to carefully examine
their concerns and, instead, filed suit."
The offers were advertised through social media, TV and radio, and
third-party platforms, according to PHAI.
Bonus bets not new
DraftKings has run the $1,000 bonus bet offer across its US sports
betting footprint this year.
Sportsbooks use promotional offers to acquire new customers,
particularly in new markets. Online Massachusetts sportsbooks
launched in March.
Sportsbook advertising has increasingly been in the spotlight with
legislators and regulators, including in Massachusetts. As multiple
jurisdictions banned using the term "risk-free" with sportsbook
offers, the American Gaming Association updated its Responsible
Marketing Code to prohibit its use. [GN]
EARGO INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Patient Square 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:
Eargo, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAR ), relating to its proposed sale to an
affiliate of Patient Square Capital. Under the terms of the
agreement, EAR shareholders will receive $2.55 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/eargo-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.
Codorus Valley Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: CVLY ), relating to its
proposed sale to Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. Under the terms
of the agreement, CVLY shareholders are expected to own
approximately 44% of the outstanding shares of the combined
company. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/codorus-valley-bancorp-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Evofem Biosciences, Inc. (OTC: EVFM), relating to its proposed sale
to Aditxt, Inc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/evofem-biosciences-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
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
EAST RIVER: Patients File Class Action Following Cyberattack
------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that
patients have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against a New
York radiology group following a September cyberattack that
impacted the information of nearly 606,000 individuals.
Rachael Kuecher alleges that East River Medical Imaging PC failed
to encrypt sensitive data and implement standard security
practices, Bloomberg Law reported on Dec. 12.
The HIPAA Journal previously reported on the incident earlier this
month, noting that the compromised information varied from person
to person. Leaked data reportedly included names, insurance info,
exam types, referring physicians, imaging results, or Social
Security numbers. The leak also involved employee data, the report
noted.
ERMI responded by enhancing its network monitoring capabilities and
continues to assess security controls, according to the report. It
sent notifications to impacted parties in late November and is
offering credit monitoring to those whose SSNs and driver's license
details were leaked.
The private practice, which was founded in 1970 and has four
locations on the Upper East Side, Lenox Hill and Sutton Place areas
of Manhattan, along with Westchester County, did not immediately
respond to a request for comment on Dec. 14. [GN]
ESTEE LAUDER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 5
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Dec. 13 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. ("Estee Lauder" or the "Company")
(NYSE: EL) securities during the period from August 18, 2022
through May 2, 2023, inclusive. Investors have until February 5,
2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On November 2, 2022, Estee Lauder announced it was lowering its
full year outlook for fiscal 2023. In pertinent part, the Company
disclosed net sales of $3.93 billion for its first quarter, a
decline of 11% from $4.39 billion in the prior-year period,
including negative impacts from foreign currency. Additionally,
organic net sales fell five percent. Estee Lauder attributed it to
headwinds from the COVID-19 restrictions in China, supply chain
disruptions, and record-high inflation. On this news, the price of
Estee Lauder shares declined by $16.80 per share, or approximately
8.13%, from $206.76 per share to close at $189.96 on November 2,
2022.
On February 2, 2023, Estee Lauder reported its financial results
for its second quarter of fiscal 2023. On the same day, the Company
announced that it was lowering its outlook for fiscal year 2023.
Despite the fact that emerging markets in other parts of Asia and
the West delivered strong organic net sales growth, the Company
blamed its lowered guidance on greater than anticipated challenges
of COVID-19 restrictions in China. On this news, the price of Estee
Lauder shares declined by $12.39 per share, or approximately 4.41%,
from $280.80 per share to close at $268.41 on February 2, 2023.
Finally, on May 3, 2023, Estee Lauder announced weaker sales and
profit for the year than estimated and accordingly cut its fiscal
year outlook for a third consecutive time. On this news, the price
of Estee Lauder shares declined by $42.52 per share, or
approximately 17.34%, from $245.22 per share to close at $202.70 on
May 3, 2023
The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company was unable to effectively manage its
supply chain and product manufacturing, resulting in reduced
revenues and margins, and increased inventory levels; and (ii)
Estee Lauder's supply chain management issues continued to exist,
in addition to elevated inventory levels at retail partners.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Estee Lauder securities,
have information, or would like to learn more about this lawsuit
and how it might affect your rights, please contact Thomas W. Elrod
of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by
filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests
with respect to these matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: https://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-699-1180
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
FRED HUTCHINSON: Faces Class Action Following Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Denise Whitaker, writing for KOMO News, reports that there's great
danger any time a cybercriminal gets a hold of personal
information. This time, a data breach at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Center was followed by ransom notes to Hutch patients and even
those who have never been a patient there.
For example, Jack Doe, the Bainbridge Island child at the center of
a new class action lawsuit.
That class action lawsuit accuses the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, UW Medical
Center, and others of failing to protect sensitive data of its
patients.
The suit stems from more than just a data breach of personal data
and private medical records. The suit -- filed by Turke & Strauss
LLP, based in Madison, Wis. -- accused the defendants of failing to
provide security to stop "a flood of extortionary threats by
cybercriminals to defendants' current and former patients."
At 2 weeks of age, the suit says Jack had a follow up appointment
at the UW Medicine Northgate Clinic.
Jack was never a patient at Fred Hutch, but Susan Gregg with UW
Medicine said me the two health systems work together advancing
cancer research and the data breach at the Hutch impacted data for
some UW patients who have not been seen at Fred Hutch.
"I think a lot of critical infrastructure in organizations, such as
hospitals are no exception and are going to be very prime targets
for this kind of behavior," said FBI spokesperson Steve Bernd.
Right now, the Washington Attorney General's website lists 10 other
data breaches involving medical information reported during just
the months of October and November. That list does not include the
new breach at the Fred Hutch.
The FBI calls these types of cyber security threats a one stop shop
for criminals.
Their advice is to
-- check accounts for suspicious activity
-- install security patches as soon as available
-- use strong passwords and multi-factor authentication
and use an off-line storage back-up system for your sensitive
information.
The FBI also asks that anyone who received a ransom note, report
it.
And what is the Hutch doing? They said they quarantined computer
servers, alerted the federal investigators and hired a forensic
security firm.
Hutch also received two ransom demands, according to the lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle. The lawsuit states
that his father, John Doe, is taking this action on behalf of
himself, his son, and all others harmed.
Before the data breach, the lawsuit states that private information
was private, but not anymore.
"Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure,"
the lawsuit says, adding that the exposure of personal health
information "to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung."
The lawsuit is demanding a jury trial and seeking class-action
status.
The full list of defendants in the suit are:
-- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
-- UW School of Medicine
-- UW Medical Center
-- Harborview Medical Center
-- Valley Medical Center
-- UW Physicians
-- UW Neighborhood Clinics (d/b/a UW Medicine Primary Care)
-- Airlift Northwest
-- Children's University Medical Group
The suit accuses the defendants of failing to protect private
information after a data breach on March 25, 2022, in which the
defendants "discovered suspicious activity associated with a single
employee's business email account."
With this new breach, the lawsuit claims the current action "is
simply part and parcel of defendants' pattern of negligently
inadequate data security."
The lawsuit seeks class-action status and asks the court to award
damages, relief, restitution, and more to the plaintiff and class
members. [GN]
GLENCORE PLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence in Safety
----------------------------------------------------------
Denene Erasmus, writing for BusinessDay, reports that in a fourth
and final filing, human rights law firm Richard Spoor Inc (RSI)
filed a class-action suit against global mining company Glencore.
Over the last five months, Spoor has filed applications for
certification of a class against several former and current coal
mining companies in SA . . .
The claim against Glencore, filed in the Gauteng division of the
High Court on Dec. 12, focuses on negligence in training and
safety. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Compel Arbitration of Users' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Joyce E. Cutler, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Google LLC
and parent Alphabet Inc. asked a federal judge on Dec. 14 to compel
arbitration of users' claims its Google Home feature intercepts
users' private communications without permission.
Those suing counter that the technology company simply waited too
long to assert its arbitration claim, and waived it.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the US District Court for the Northern
District of California, who's handing the case, on Dec. 11
certified a nationwide class of purchasers of a Google-made
device.
The Dec. 14 hearing involved Google's bid to exclude purchasers who
agreed to a class-action waiver and to have their claims arbitrated
under agreements. [GN]
HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI to End Rehab Stays
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Henreckson, writing for McKnights, reports that two skilled
nursing patients filed a class action suit against Humana on Dec.
12 alleging their Medicare Advantage benefits were cut prematurely
short because of Humana's wrongful reliance on artificial
intelligence.
The lawsuit alleges that Humana regularly overrides clear
post-acute care needs and the recommendations of doctors in order
to cut costs.
"This putative class action arises from Humana's illegal deployment
of artificial intelligence (AI) in place of real doctors to
wrongfully deny elderly patients care owed to them under Medicare
Advantage Plans," the suit states. "Humana knows that the nH
Predict AI Model predictions are highly inaccurate and are not
based on patients' medical needs but continues to use this system
to deny patients' coverage."
The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 12 in the US District Court in
Western Kentucky. It is the newest front in a war over the future
of AI in healthcare. The courts' decision could help clear the way
for AI to remain on its current trajectory in the sector or force
insurers and providers to take a hard look at how this emerging
technology impacts patients.
AI is increasingly utilized to streamline time-consuming processes
in the healthcare sector, but the technology has drawn scrutiny
from policymakers and the public -- especially when it is used to
make healthcare decisions that would typically be made by humans.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
sent a letter in May to demand that the nation's largest Medicare
Advantage insurers -- including Humana -- provide more transparency
about how they use AI in such care decisions.
Demands for transparency and accountability continued to build
through November, when 30 House Democrats urged the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services to investigate the ways algorithms are
being deployed in the healthcare sector.
The same month, UnitedHealth Group was handed a similar class
action lawsuit for using the same nH Predict AI algorithm as used
by Humana.
Denial of post-acute coverage
JoAnne Barrows and Susan Hagood, the plaintiffs, were admitted to
skilled nursing facilities for post-acute care and rehab after
injuries they sustained in 2021 and 2022, respectively.
Both were receiving ongoing care following a hospital stay, which
should have been covered under their plans, according to the
lawsuit.
"Under Medicare Advantage Plans, patients who have a three-day
hospital stay are typically entitled to up to 100 days in a nursing
home. With the use of the nH Predict AI Model, Humana cuts off
payment in a fraction of that time. Patients rarely stay in a
nursing home more than 14 days before they start receiving payment
denials," the suit asserts.
Barrows' doctor was allegedly still recommending further
rehabilitation treatment and for Barrows to keep off her feet for
another month at the time her coverage was cut.
"Ms. Barrows and her doctor were bewildered by Humana's premature
termination of coverage," the lawsuit said.
Claims of wrongdoing
The class action suit lays blame for the plaintiffs' coverage
denial squarely on Humana for the way it utilizes AI algorithms and
for undermining doctors' and employees' ability to consider the
nuances of a patient's case.
"Humana wrongfully delegates its obligation to evaluate and
investigate claims to the nH Predict AI Model. The nH Predict AI
Model spits out generic recommendations based on incomplete and
inadequate medical records and fails to adjust for a patient's
individual circumstances," the lawsuit alleges.
It also asserts that Humana employees are reprimanded or fired for
going against the AI's recommendations and that this constitutes
purposeful misconduct by the insurer.
Mark Taylor, director of corporate communications at Humana, said
that Humana does not comment on pending litigation but did provide
a statement on the company's use of AI to McKnight's Long-Term Care
News.
"At Humana, we use various tools, including augmented intelligence,
to expedite and approve utilization management requests and ensure
that patients receive high-quality, safe and efficient care," the
comment said. "By definition, augmented intelligence maintains a
‘human in the loop' decision-making whenever AI is utilized.
Coverage decisions are made based on the health care needs of
patients, medical judgment from doctors and clinicians, and
guidelines put in place by CMS. It's important to note that adverse
coverage decisions are only made by physician medical directors."
It's unclear how many people have been impacted by alleged misuse
of AI, but the lawsuit claims that thousands or possibly millions
of people might be eligible for payment if the case goes the
plaintiffs' way, due to how widespread the use of AI already is.
[GN]
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Wins Property Tax Assessment Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
JoBeth Davis, writing for KMBC News, reports that Jackson County,
Missouri, taxpayers fighting against the 2023 property tax
assessment process won one battle and lost another in Missouri's
courts on Dec. 12.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey first announced his office
has filed a lawsuit against the county over the debacle.
A short time later, two Missouri Supreme Court opinions were handed
down, dismissing the class action lawsuit against the county, and
dismissing counts of the suit against Tyler Technologies entirely.
The class action suit, filed by Jackson County property owners
(referred to as Taxpayers in the petition), filed suit against the
county saying its actions resulted in "unlawful increases to
assessed property values."
Specifically, Taxpayers claimed the county failed to provide notice
of increases by June 15, and failed to conduct physical inspections
of properties that increased by more than 15 percent.
The county filed a motion to dismiss that lawsuit saying Taxpayers
"failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before
filing suit" in Jackson County Circuit Court. The circuit court
overruled the County's motion to dismiss, ultimately pushing the
case to the Missouri Supreme Court.
In the opinion issued on Dec. 12, the county and supreme court
stated complaints about property assessments must first be brought
before a county board of equalization. If no agreement is reached,
the matter can be brought before the state tax commission. If,
after that, no agreement is reached, the property owner may seek
judicial review in the circuit court.
Taxpayers claimed because the county failed to notify them of
increases promptly, they didn't need to exhaust all available
administrative remedies.
The opinion notes, "Taxpayers assert they did not receive notice of
increased assessments by June 15, and they filed suit challenging
the increased assessments on June 20. The time to appeal to the
Board did not expire until the second Monday in July-July 10, 2023
. . . when Taxpayers filed suit, they had 20 days to appeal to the
Board."
" Alternatively, Taxpayers could have appealed the increased
assessments directly to the Commission, as they did not receive
notice prior to 30 days before the deadline to appeal to the Board
. . . In fact, Taxpayers have until December 31, 2023, to file an
appeal with the Commission."
To sum the decision up, the court wrote, "County's failure to
provide timely notice did not prevent Taxpayers from pursuing
administrative remedies as in John Calvin. Rather, at the time
Taxpayers filed suit, they could have exercised their appellate
rights to the Board or Commission, but they chose not to and,
instead, filed suit. Because Taxpayers failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing suit, the action must be
dismissed."
In a second opinion issued on Dec. 12, the court ruled Tyler
Technologies' request to be dismissed from the lawsuit was granted
"because Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing Tyler owed them a
duty of care." [GN]
JOHN DEERE: Must Face Antitrust Class Action, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean P. McConnell, Esq., Christopher H. Casey, Esq., Brian H.
Pandya, Esq., and Joseph R. Welsh, Esq., of Duane Morris LLP,
disclosed that on November 27, 2023, the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois denied agricultural giant John
Deere's request to dismiss a proposed class action alleging the
company has violated antitrust laws. Specifically, the purported
class alleges that John Deere unfairly limits competition for
farming equipment by restricting access to software and tools
needed to repair electronic control units on tractors.
In re: Deere & Company Repair Service Antitrust Litigation, No.
3:22-cv-50188, MDL No. 3030 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2023). In denying
Deere's motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court found that
the proposed class sufficiently pled its "harmful allegations" that
the company exercises monopoly power in the aftermarket, thereby
rejecting Deere's proffered theory that "everybody knew" options
for consumers were limited.
Takeaways
The Deere case is an important development in the right-to-repair
movement that accelerated in the wake of a presidential executive
order and a promise by the Federal Trade Commission to ramp up
enforcement against illegal repair restrictions.
Original equipment manufacturers traditionally sought control in
so-called repair markets; however, that may be changing.
While just at the pleading stage, the Deere decision is notable in
that the court recognized that the plaintiffs alleged a
single-brand repair aftermarket and that Deere failed to provide
sufficient information regarding product lifecycle costs and repair
options.
The case also tackles the Illinois Brick doctrine head-on and could
be an important decision for downstream customers in future
right-to-repair cases.
A Brief History of the Right to Repair
The debate over the consumer right to a competitive aftermarket for
service and maintenance has existed for centuries.1 In recent
years, however, as electronics and software systems have integrated
with mechanical systems like automobiles and tractors, the issue
has gained prominence and urgency, with lawmakers and industry
players staking positions on the issue. For example, legislation
introduced by congressional Democrats would ensure consumers can
have vehicles and electronic devices serviced by independent
outlets by requiring open access to tools and technology. President
Joe Biden has also expressed broad support for this initiative. The
Federal Trade Commission also unanimously voted to prioritize
manufacturer-imposed requirements for consumers to use licensed
dealerships for repairs.
While industry has generally opposed right-to-repair efforts, even
that is changing. Other companies have responded by forming
alliances -- such as the recent Tesla and Rivian pact -- that on
their face expand aftermarket repair options but that some critics
say still limit consumers from choosing completely independent
repair shops.2
Not all developments have been in favor of greater rights to
repairs. Last month, a federal judge in California dismissed a
class action right-to-repair case against Tesla, finding plaintiffs
failed to both plausibly allege that the Tesla aftermarket for
repair services and Tesla-compatible parts is a cognizable
single-brand aftermarket for purposes of Sherman Act and related
state law claims.3 However, the plaintiffs were given leave to
amend their complaint(s) to more adequately define the alleged
aftermarket monopoly and explain how (a) "consumers are in fact
unaware of the supposedly supracompetitive prices and exorbitant
wait times" in servicing their vehicles, (b) "significant
information costs prevent accurate life-cycle pricing," and (c)
"consumers cannot switch between [electric vehicles] in the
foremarket."4
Analysis of the Deere Decision
John Deere's motion argued that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing and antitrust standing, and further contended that
plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of a relevant
market.
The district court's rejection of those arguments was significant
in several ways. First, the court held the plaintiffs adequately
pleaded a single-brand aftermarket. While Deere argued consumers
were well-aware that repair options are limited, Judge Iain
Johnston credited the "bait and switch theory" alleged by the
plaintiffs and also found that:
To the extent such a claim can be based on the lack of information
preventing the consumer from determining the life cycle cost of the
product, based on the Complaint's allegations -- particularly
Deere's market power -- the Court finds Plaintiffs have stated a
claim under this theory as well.5
The court determined from the allegations that Deere unfairly
hampered aftermarket competition because of "a lack of
forthrightness and/or the lack of consumer information to calculate
life-cycle costs," despite the fact that customers are not even
aware of their future maintenance needs at the time of purchase.
Deere argued it never hid from consumers the range of available
aftermarket service providers, but Judge Johnston appears to impose
an affirmative obligation on Deere and others hoping to avoid
antitrust scrutiny.
Second, despite coming in the posture of a Rule 12(c) motion for
judgment on the pleadings, with litigation on the merits still
unresolved, Judge Johnston went to great lengths to discuss
cultural implications of this decision, noting the proximity of the
Rockford courthouse to where John Deere built his first plow, and
suggesting that it may preserve the "humble origins" of a
19th-century blacksmith's steel plow that unpredictably evolved
into a 21st-century agricultural monopoly. The judge wrote, if the
claims turn out to be meritorious, "the Court assumes the man
lionized at the historic site [close to the courthouse] would be
deeply disappointed in his namesake corporation." While choice of
venue is often significant in high-stakes litigation, it seems
especially notable that the court admittedly viewed this case
through the lens of Deere's tradition as a local mechanical
innovator.
Finally, the court seized the opportunity to provide a more
contemporary analysis of the decades-old but inconsistently applied
Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule, which dictates that indirect
purchasers "who are two or more steps removed [from the alleged
violator] in a distribution chain may not sue" on antitrust
violations.6 The court first made the threshold determination that
the so-called conspiracy exception to the rule applied because
Deere plaintiffs "are the type of party best suited to bring the
claims" and are "the first purchasers into the [alleged]
conspiracy" between the manufacturer and the dealers. Therefore,
the Illinois Brick rule was inapplicable. The court nonetheless
undertook the analysis to explain why John Deere-authorized
dealerships need not be joined in this case. Judge Johnston
admittedly embarked on this route to protect his ruling on appeal
and to elucidate a perceived gap in decisional case law on the
issue.
After a lengthy summary of the persuasive cases on the issue, the
court concluded that a fresh analysis was warranted: "The Court
believes it is writing on a clean slate. It is not bound by any
controlling authority under these circumstances. So to the extent
the Court needs to determine this issue, it will."7 The court
applied the three Illinois Brick factors and found, (1) "there is
no risk of double recovery" from the dealerships and John Deere
itself, (2) the failure to include the dealerships in the
litigation "does not complicate damage calculations," and (3)
"requiring the Dealerships to be joined as defendants would not
increase enforcement of the antitrust statutes."8 Plaintiffs'
failure to join John Deere dealerships as defendants was therefore
immaterial. In concise fashion, the court provided what is likely
to be one of the more useful -- and citable --applications of the
Illinois Brick direct purchaser rule, just as the doctrine becomes
increasingly central in future right-to-repair litigation.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Sean P.
McConnell, Christopher H. Casey, Brian H. Pandya, Joseph R. Welsh,
any of the attorneys in our Antitrust and Competition Group or the
attorney in the form with whom you are regularly in contact. [GN]
KNIX WEAR: Settles PFAS Class Action for $1.4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Knix agreed to a $1.4 million
settlement to resolve claims that its period underwear contains
dangerous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have
been linked to serious health concerns.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Knix products
between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2022.
According to the class action lawsuit, Knix period underwear
products contain dangerous PFAS chemicals despite the
manufacturer's promises that the underwear is free of toxic
chemicals. PFAS chemicals have been linked to serious health
problems such as birth complications, cancers and more.
Knix is a period underwear brand.
Knix hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.4 million
settlement to resolve the PFAS class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$5.30 for each Knix product they purchased, up to a maximum payment
of $15.90. Each class member's claim form will indicate whether
Knix has a record of their purchase or if they need to provide
proof of purchase.
As part of the settlement, Knix has also agreed to implement
increased PFAS testing for two years. The company also agreed to
remove references on its website to Knix products being PFAS-free,
toxic chemical-free or fluorine-free.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 11, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
April 23, 2024.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by March 11, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Knix products between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Dec. 31, 2022.
Potential Award
$15.90
Proof of Purchase
Receipt, proof of online order, an email from Knix or another
retailer or credit card statements for each transaction that must
show the amount and date of the purchase, the seller and the style
purchased.
Claim Form
CLICK LINK TO FILE A CLAIM: https://shorturl.at/gsW19
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
03/11/2024
Case Name
Spencer, et al. v. Knix Wear Inc., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-07823-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York
Final Hearing
04/23/2024
Settlement Website
KnixMarketingSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
KNS Settlement Administrator
PO Box 301134
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134
877-392-0141
Class Counsel
Erin Ruben
Hunter Bryson
Harper Segui
Rachel Soffin
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
Defense Counsel
Lauren S Colton
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP [GN]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Judge Asked to Publish Info in CPAP Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that the U.S.
District Judge presiding over all federal Philips CPAP recall
lawsuits has been asked to publish information about a class action
settlement, which will resolve economic loss claims for individuals
who owned sleep apnea machines that contained a toxic sound
abatement foam. However, the Philips CPAP settlement does not
impact thousands of individual injury lawsuits being pursued over
cancers, lung damage and other health problems caused by the
machines.
The litigation stems from a Philips recall issued in 2021, which
impacted millions of the CPAP, BiPAP and mechanical ventilator
machines that contained a defective polyester-based polyurethane
(PE-PUR) foam. Although the foam was intended to help reduce noise
and vibrations, it has since been discovered that the foam tends to
break down over time, releasing toxic particles and gases which may
enter the machines' air pathways.
In the wake of the recall, Philips has faced both personal injury
and wrongful death lawsuits brought on behalf of former users
diagnosed with certain injuries linked to inhaling the foam
particles. However, the company also faces a Philips CPAP class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all owners of the recalled
machines, seeking compensation for economic damages suffered by
consumers, even if they have not been diagnosed with an injury.
In September, Philips announced it will pay at least $445 million
in a CPAP recall class action settlement to individuals who bought,
rented or leased one of the impacted devices, and another $34
million to health insurance companies and others who paid to
reimburse users to replace the machines. However, the deal has no
impact on individuals' ability to continue pursuing personal injury
lawsuits over cancers, respiratory disease and other side effects
caused by Philips CPAP foam particles breaking down.
Plaintiffs who are part of the class action lawsuits will receive
$100 for each device they returned to Philips due to the recall,
and another $50 to $1,500 in compensation, depending on the type of
device the plaintiffs used. In addition, plaintiffs may be eligible
for extended warranties on devices that were repaired or
refurbished by the manufacturer.
Philips CPAP Class Action Settlement Information
All Philips CPAP lawsuits, both class action and individual claims,
have been centralized before Senior U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers
Conti in the Western District of Pennsylvania, for coordinated
discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict
litigation (MDL).
On December 7, the parties submitted a joint motion which asks
Judge Conti to allow them to publish the economic loss class
settlement notice on the court's website.
Judge Conti granted preliminary approval to the settlement
agreement in early October, and publishing of the information for
access by potential participants is a standard procedure. However,
in the motion, the parties also recommend that a final approval
hearing be scheduled for April 11, 2024.
The complete settlement order that would be published to the
Court's website is attached to the joint motion as "Exhibit A".
The agreement gives users until August 9, 2024 to enroll in the
settlement agreement, return their device, and be rewarded with a
$100 device return award and an additional device payment award,
without the need to submit a claim form. The settlement provides
additional instructions for those who did not return, and do not
still have, their affected devices.
Plaintiffs who wish to object to the settlement agreement have
until February 7, 2024 to file their objections with the Court.
Individual Philips CPAP Personal Injury Lawsuits Remain Unresolved
While the parties appear on track to resolve the class action
portion of the litigation, tens of thousands of individuals still
have pending lawsuits indicating they suffered actual physical
injuries due to their use of the recalled Philips CPAP devices.
Philips executives have already indicated publicly that they hope
to reach a settlement agreement that resolves all cases. In April,
Philips CEO Roy Jakobs announced that the company planned to settle
the class action litigation this year, and hoped to resolve the
individual injury claims sometime in 2024.
It is expected that the settlement to resolve the Philips CPAP
personal injury lawsuits will far eclipse the economic loss
settlement amount. However, if no agreement is reached to resolve a
large majority of the individual claims, Judge Conti has also
directed the parties to establish a Philips CPAP lawsuit bellwether
process, where small groups of representative claims will be
prepared for early trial dates if a global settlement is not
reached. [GN]
KROGER CO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Mislabeled Smoked Gouda
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that "copycat"
and "frivolous" are some of the terms used by Kroger as it asks a
federal judge to throw out a class action lawsuit over smoked
gouda.
The case is one of the latest filed by lawyer Spencer Sheehan, who
has angered defendants and judges with his theories of consumer
deception. Kroger, he says, unfairly uses smoke flavoring rather
than smoking its gouda over hardwoods.
Defendants of Sheehan's are increasingly pointing to his track
record, which includes several hundred proposed class actions over
things like pears and apples in strawberry Pop-Tarts and skim milk
in the cheese in Bagel Bites and a judge calling him a "wrecking
ball."
Kroger's motion says he has filed eight similar lawsuits and has
voluntarily dismissed most of them.
"This time, Mr. Sheehan, along with (plaintiff Bridget Coburn),
makes up a representation that does not appear on the label,"
attorneys for Kroger wrote Dec. 11 in St. Louis federal court.
"Ms. Coburn claims the Smoked Gouda label is misleading because the
front label statements 'Smoked Gouda' and 'distinct, smoky flavor'
somehow led her to conclude the Smoked Gouda was smoked 'entirely'
over hardwoods and not at all by liquid smoke.
"But the label makes no mention of smoking over hardwoods, and the
product discloses 'SMOKE FLAVOR' as an ingredient, dispelling any
possible expectation that the Smoked Gouda is only smoked over
hardwoods."
Coburn alleges that consumers are misled because the defendant's
statements on the label are identical to Gouda cheeses that get
their smoked flavor from being "smoked over hardwoods" when
Kroger's quality is not equal because it is added smoke flavor.
She further alleges the defendant discloses the addition of smoked
flavor on the back of the product label where customers are not
likely to read. Coburn claims consumers are harmed by the
defendant's actions because they pay a premium for the cheese.
Kroger says Sheehan has filed "several hundred frivolous
mislabeling lawsuits" in recent years. It says this one -- like
others -- can't pass the "reasonable consumer" test needed for
consumer deception claims and is "blatant forum-shopping."
"Mr. Sheehan has been testing these cases in multiple jurisdictions
(five against Kroger and Ralphs alone), then voluntarily dismissing
and adjusting allegations based on the roadblocks he hits along the
way," Kroger says.
"(A)s a consequence of this forum-shopping, Kroger has been forced
to repeatedly and needlessly expend resources to defend itself in
these serial actions (including after being forced to brief summary
judgment . . .)."
Daniel Harvath is also representing the plaintiff. [GN]
LA FONDA DELI: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
DAJANIA MARITZA ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA FONDA DELI CORP. and DANIA
NUNEZ, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08763
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
egregious violations of the Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and its regulations.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide spread of hours compensation, failure to
pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide written wage
notice, and failure to furnish wage statements upon each payment of
wages.
Plaintiff Ortiz residing in Hicksville, New York, was employed by
Defendants from November 2021 until November 2023. The Plaintiff's
primary duties were as a food preparer, cook, waitress, and
cleaner, while performing other miscellaneous duties.
La Fonda Deli Corp. is a restaurant based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
LENSCRAFTERS INC: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Morgan, writing for Verify, reports that Lenscrafters is a
prescription eyewear company with over 1,000 locations across the
United States.
Multiple VERIFY readers, including Diane and Amanda, reached out to
ask if messages they received in the mail about a $39 million
AccuFit LensCrafters class action settlement were legitimate.
THE QUESTION
Is the LensCrafters class action settlement real?
THE SOURCES
LensCrafters
AccuFit Class Action website
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
An article published by Dr. Amy Walden & Associates Indianapolis
Eye Care Center
THE ANSWER
This is true.
Yes, the LensCrafters class action settlement is real.
Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts newsletter here.
WHAT WE FOUND
The LensCrafters class action settlement notices going out by mail
and email are legitimate. The official AccuFit class action website
shares documents of both the email notice and the postcard notice
that are both currently being sent out.
Customers who used the AccuFit Digital Measurement System to
purchase glasses from Lenscrafters between Sept. 5, 2013 and Sept.
20, 2023 qualify for the settlement.
In September 2017, LensCrafters customers in the United States
began filing claims after using the company's AccuFit Digital
Measurement System, which LensCrafters says "digitally measures the
exact location of your pupils, the spacing of your eyes, and the
shape of your glasses so we can place your prescription in your
lenses exactly where you need it to see your best."
An article published by Dr. Amy Walden & Associates Indianapolis
Eye Care Center further explains the system, saying that it
captures digital images from different angles of your face, while
trying on different frames.
LensCrafters says the system "measures your eyes five times more
precisely than traditional methods, down to a tenth of a
millimeter." But customers claimed these statements were misleading
and they "would not have purchased [their] prescription glasses
from LensCrafters and/or would not have paid as much" if they had
not seen the ads about the AccuFit system, according to the
settlement website.
The claims were consolidated into a larger class action lawsuit,
which was overseen by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The two parties ultimately agreed on
a $39,000,000 settlement.
In September, a preliminary approval for the class action
settlement was set and notices began being sent out.
Before the settlement can be paid out, the judge overseeing the
settlement must approve it. The approval date is currently set for
Feb. 26, 2024, according to a United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York document.
Once approved, each LensCrafters customer who submits an approved
claim will receive up to $50 for each set of prescription glasses
purchased from LensCrafters after using AccuFit between Sept. 5,
2013 and Sept. 20, 2023.
To be excluded from the settlement, requests must be mailed by Feb.
5, 2024. The current timeline on the AccuFit class action website
shows that claim forms must be submitted by March 27, 2024; 30 days
after the final approval order. Claims can be filled out online or
by mail.
Customers must provide proof of purchase by submitting either a
copy of the receipt, or a statement under penalty of perjury that
the purchase was made.
If you have any additional questions about the LensCrafters class
action settlement, you can contact the administrator by phone at
833-933-8668 or via email at info@accufitclassaction.com. [GN]
LIFELABS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on April 6
----------------------------------------------------------
Abby O'Brien, writing for CTV News, reports that Canadian LifeLabs
customers who had their data breached in a 2019 cyberattack may be
eligible for compensation after an Ontario court certified a
class-action settlement in October.
In a notice issued by LifeLabs on Dec. 11, the company said
Canadian residents who used its services on or before Dec. 17, 2019
may be eligible for compensation.
The distribution of up to $9.8 million in settlements was approved
by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in October as part of a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of up to 8.6 million LifeLabs
customers whose data had been possibly breached or stolen in a 2019
cyberattack.
The breach was first made public in a 2019 announcement by
LifeLabs, but had been discovered months earlier, the company said
at the time. LifeLabs confirmed it paid a ransom for the data, the
amount of which was undisclosed.
Less than a month after news of the attack, a class action lawsuit
was filed against the company claiming its cybersecurity measures
were inadequate. LifeLabs denied all allegations.
In 2020, Ontario and B.C.'s privacy commissioners found that
LifeLabs had broken privacy laws by failing to put sufficient
safeguards in place on patient data. The commissioners' ordered
LifeLabs to implement new safety measures and "improve its process
for notifying individuals of the specific elements of their
personal health information which were the subject of the breach."
In August, LifeLabs announced a settlement had been proposed(opens
in a new tab) in the class action proceedings. Under the proposal,
LifeLabs would "not admit . . . any allegation of unlawful conduct"
or liability.
HOW TO FIND OUT IF YOU'RE A LIFELABS CLASS-ACTION MEMBER
If you live in Canada and were a LifeLabs customer on or before
Dec. 17, 2019, you will need to submit a claim to find out if
you're a verified class-action member.
A claims administrator assesses each claim for eligibility.
HOW LONG ARE CLAIMS BEING ACCEPTED?
You can submit a claim between now and April 6, 2024.
HOW DO I SUBMIT A CLAIM?
First, you must fill in a claim form. You will need a valid
provincial health card number.
The form requires claimants to choose whether they would prefer
payment by e-transfer or cheque.
Once a form is filled out, it can be submitted online at
https://lifelabssettlement.kpmg.ca, emailed to
lifelabssettlement@kpmg.ca, or mailed to:
KPMG INC., a subsidiary of KPMG LLP
C/O LifeLabs Claims Administrator
600 boul. de Maisonneuve West, Suite 1500
Montréal, Québec,
H3A 0A3
HOW MUCH WILL BE PAID OUT IN COMPENSATION?
Each eligible claimant who submits a form on time will receive an
estimated compensation of $50, up to a maximum of $150.
The company said the precise amount paid to each person will be
determined based on the total number of claims filed.
Compensation is subject to court-approved legal fees, disbursements
and taxes.
WHEN WILL I BE PAID IF ELIGIBLE?
Payments will be made after April 26, 2024 to those verified as
class members.
With files from CTV News' Michael Lee. [GN]
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Morris Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MORRIS & JANA L. MORRIS, AS JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHT OF
SURVIVORSHIP, Plaintiffs v. LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, GARRY MAURO, STEVEN R. FIFE, MICHAEL A. BEINDORFF,
ERIN BROCKOVICH, RAYMOND B. GREER, CINDY LATHAM, and DARWIN K.
LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 2023-1195 (Del. Ch., Nov. 29, 2023) is
a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, as
Joint Tenants With Right of Survivorship, holders of LifeVantage
Corporation's preferred share purchase rights for shares of the
Company's common stock and of the Company's common stock, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of the
Company against LifeVantage and members of the Company's board of
directors for declaratory relief relating to the Company's
violation of Delaware General Corporation Law.
Under Delaware law the directors of a for-profit corporation are
bound by fiduciary duties and standards particular to such
corporations. As alleged in this complaint, the Company's currently
effective stockholder rights plan, or the Rights Agreement, adopted
and maintained by Defendants and ratified by the Company's
stockholders, has a provision which purports to eliminate the
liability of LifeVantage directors for breaches of fiduciary duty
in violation of DGCL Sections 102(b)(7) and 141(a). The Plaintiffs
bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other holders of
the preferred share purchase rights pursuant to the Rights
Agreement against LifeVantage and members of its Board, seeking a
declaratory judgment that the relevant Rights Agreement provision
violates Delaware law and public policy and is invalid, says the
suit.
LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development and distribution of advanced nutraceutical dietary
supplements and skin and hair care products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
KRANENBURG
80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365
E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com
LINKEDIN CORP: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Action for $6.75MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Christ, writing for HRDive, reports that LinkedIn Corp. will
pay $6.75 million to more than 17,000 current and former employees
to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging the company violated its
fiduciary duties in the management of a participant-directed 401(k)
plan, according to court documents filed on
Dec. 13.
The social media company allegedly acted "imprudently" in its
handling of the investments by selecting riskier funds with higher
fees, violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, according to the order signed by Judge Edward J. Davila of
the U.S. District Court Northern District of California. Plaintiffs
estimated the company owed the class between $3.9 million and $15.9
million in damages, according to court documents.
"At LinkedIn, we work to provide our employees with access to
opportunities to build the future they want. While we don't agree
with the claims made in the legal matter regarding LinkedIn's
former 401(k) plan, we decided a settlement was the best path
forward," a company spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
ERISA sets minimum standards that covered retirement and health
plans must meet to ensure participants' and beneficiaries'
interests are protected.
In June, the Kraft Heinz Co. sued insurer Aetna for allegedly
"breach[ing] its fiduciary duties and engag[ing]in prohibited
transactions" in its administration of Kraft Heinz's self-funded
medical and dental plans, benefiting itself at the expense of Kraft
Heinz. That litigation is ongoing.
In August 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit
against the owner of a New Jersey design firm and her spouse for
allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty by investing most of the
assets of an employee profit-sharing plan in a bank the spouse
owned, costing the plan more than $17 million after the bank's
shares nosedived, according to the lawsuit. The couple settled the
lawsuit for more than $2 million. [GN]
LIVE NATION: Taylor Swift Fan Drops Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Billboard, reports that a Taylor Swift
fan who filed a class action against Ticketmaster parent Live
Nation in the wake of last year's disastrous presale of tickets to
the Eras Tour has agreed to drop her case against the concert
giant, months after attorneys on the case said they were engaged in
settlement talks.
Swift fan Michelle Sterioff filed her case in December 2022 just
weeks after the botched Eras rollout, which saw widespread service
delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried -- and many
failed -- to buy tickets. At the time, her lawyers blasted Live
Nation as a "monopoly" that had "knowingly misled millions of
fans."
But a year later, Sterioff voluntarily asked a federal judge on
Dec. 12 to dismiss her case. It's unclear if a settlement was
reached, but the two sides reported in August that they were
engaged in "ongoing settlement discussions." Neither side
immediately returned requests for comment.
Sterioff's proposed class action was just one piece of the legal
fallout for Live Nation following the error-plagued presale for
Eras, which went on the earn hundreds of millions of dollars and
dominate headlines as 2023's biggest concert tour.
After the Nov. 22, 2022 incident, Live Nation quickly apologized to
fans and pinned the blame on a "staggering number of bot attacks"
and "unprecedented traffic." But lawmakers in Washington and state
attorneys general around the country quickly called for
investigations. That included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the
chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, who suggest
that regulators consider "breaking up the company" -- a reference
to Live Nation's 2010 merger with Ticketmaster.
Days after the incident, the New York Times reported that DOJ had
already been investigating Live Nation for months over potential
antitrust violations, reaching out to venues across the country to
ask about the company's conduct. Last month, Reuters reported that
the probe was ongoing, with federal investigators focusing on
whether Live Nation imposed anticompetitive agreements on venues. A
Senate subcommittee investigation is also underway, sending out
subpoenas last month demanding info about the company's "failure to
combat artificially inflated demand fueled by bots in multiple,
high-profile incidents."
Sterioff's case was one of two major class actions filed against
Live Nation over the Eras ticket rollout. In her complaint, she
accused the company of violating consumer protection and antitrust
laws, calling Ticketmaster a "monopoly that is only interested in
taking every dollar it can from a captive public."
"Because Ticketmaster has exclusive agreements with virtually all
venues capable of accommodating large concerts, Taylor Swift and
other popular musicians have no choice but to sell their tickets
through Ticketmaster, and their fans have no choice but to purchase
tickets through Ticketmaster's primary ticketing platform," her
lawyers wrote.
Sterioff's lawsuit claimed that Live Nation has exploited that
dominance to charge "ever more supracompetitive ticketing fees for
both primary and secondary ticketing services," including for
"virtually all venues hosting ‘The Eras' Tour."
But the lawsuit has largely been paused for months. In August, both
sides agreed that it would be better to wait to litigate the case
after a federal appeals court rules on a separate antitrust lawsuit
against Live Nation, which will decide whether the company can
force ticketbuyers to resolve such legal claims in private
arbitration rather than open court.
The other class action over the Eras debacle, filed by an outspoken
fan named Julie Barfuss and more than two dozen other spurned
Swifities, remains pending in California federal court. In her
complaint, Barfuss went even further than Sterioff, claiming Live
Nation had tacitly allowed the kind of mass-scalping that caused so
many problems during the presale.
"Ticketmaster has stated that it has taken steps to address this
issue, but in reality, has taken steps to make additional profit
from the scalped tickets," Barfuss' lawyer wrote. "Instead of
competition, Ticketmaster has conspired with stadiums to force fans
to buy more expensive tickets that Ticketmaster gets additional
fees from every time the tickets are resold." [GN]
LOAN DEPOT: Faces Class Actions Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noted trial attorney Rogge Dunn has filed two class action lawsuits
in state court in Dallas County against Loan Depot, Inc., and
Cardinal Financial Corporation alleging the companies violated the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims of negligent
misrepresentation and gross negligence against Texas homeowners.
According to the lawsuit, Loan Depot, Inc. (NYSE: LDI) and Cardinal
Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: CFNL) provided financial services to
hundreds of thousands of individuals to induce them into entering
refinancing agreements where they would encourage borrowers to skip
the first one or two payments on their new loan, resulting in the
borrower paying added interest over the course of the loan.
The filing alleges both companies, "made promises and
representations, and/or failed to provide important and relevant
information to Plaintiffs and the other members of the class
relative to the Transactions. Many of the deceived borrowers are
veterans who had VA loans. The false statements were made to
induce Plaintiffs and the other members of the class to induce them
into entering the Transactions." The negative results of the
"skipped" payments were never disclosed to the borrowers but
collectively benefited the lenders by tens of millions of dollars.
Both companies have rejected the class's efforts to seek an
amicable solution. Plaintiffs in the litigation include two Dallas
County residents, a Bexar County resident and a Taylor County
resident.
"When you trust big companies with expertise and industry
knowledge, you expect them to be honest and give sound advice,"
said Mr. Dunn, a nationally recognized litigator for his
representation of high-level executives and companies in business
disputes. "Instead, Loan Depot and Cardinal Financial used their
position to exploit homeowners to their own benefit."
The firm expects more plaintiffs to be added to the class, adding
to the damages. Therefore, the relief category is currently subject
to being amended.
The cases are Angela Colonna, et al. vs. Loan Depot, inc., et al.,
and Bernard Guinard, et al. vs. Cardinal Financial Company, L.P.
Both cases were filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas.
Rogge Dunn Group, PC
Rogge Dunn Group has built a well-deserved reputation for
aggressive litigation, outstanding results, and attentive client
service. Led by founding partner Rogge Dunn, the firm is well-known
for successfully trying high-profile business, financial, and
employment disputes. This trial experience fosters innovative
strategies to obtain effective settlements and minimize litigation
risks for corporate and individual clients. Based in Dallas, the
firm tries cases in state and federal courts in Texas and
throughout the United States. Learn more about the firm at
www.roggedunngroup.com. [GN]
MAT ASPHALT: Judge Approves $1.2MM Deal in Noxious Odor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Asimow, writing for Block Club Chicago, reports that a Cook
County Circuit Court judge has preliminarily approved a $1.2
million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against a
controversial McKinley Park asphalt plant that neighbors alleged
caused noxious odors and polluted the area.
The settlement, agreed upon in early November, applies to any
resident who lives within a half-mile radius of MAT Asphalt, 2055
W. Pershing Road. The facility is situated across the street from
McKinley Park and makes hot-mix asphalt, among other industrial
products.
The original complaint, filed in 2020 by resident Tanisha
Rodriguez, alleged that fumes and odors from the facility created a
nuisance for neighbors. The lawsuit sought damages for any resident
living within a mile radius of the facility, and included testimony
from Rodriguez and other neighbors, who said the odors smelled like
sulfur and ammonia, interrupted their sleep and prevented them from
opening windows or going outside.
With the settlement agreement, lawyers from the Detroit-based law
office of Liddle Sheets Coulson P.C. are now requesting that
neighbors interested in the payout file a claim form to receive
compensation from the settlement fund. The form must be postmarked
by Jan. 22.
Further details on eligibility and the claim process can be found
on the law firm's website.
The settlement also requires that MAT Asphalt make approximately
$900,000 worth of improvements to the facility by April 30. Those
improvements include a "blue smoke control system" atop its hot-mix
silo, a dust control plan, a rule that all trucks leaving the
facility must use tarp covers and the planting of 25 additional
trees on the site, among other changes.
MAT Asphalt has denied all wrongdoing, and residents who opt-in to
the settlement will waive their right to sue MAT Asphalt in a
separate legal action. The settlement states that MAT Asphalt
agreed to the settlement to avoid the costs of protracted
litigation.
A spokesman for MAT Asphalt reiterated that the plant's emissions
are below regulatory limits. In a statement, co-owner Michael
Tadin, Jr. said the company settled with neighbors to avoid the
costs of protracted litigation.
"We reiterate what the settlement states: MAT Asphalt vigorously
denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability," Tadin said in
the statement. "Rather than engage in unproductive litigation, we
will continue to focus on delivering more of the cost-effective,
industry-leading service that we have provided to the city of
Chicago since 2018."
Since its opening in 2018, the hot-mix facility has been a
flashpoint among neighbors and environmental activists, who said
they were blindsided when they didn't receive warning that it would
apply for a pollution permit.
In the years since, the facility has maintained close ties with the
city despite continuing to draw the ire of nearby residents, who
have framed its operation within the context of the environmental
justice movement.
A 2020 study showed that environmental polluters are often located
in neighborhoods with larger populations of color, particularly
Latino populations. The population of McKinley Park on the city's
Southwest Side is approximately 55 percent Latino and 30 percent
Asian, according to the Chicago Agency for Metropolitan Planning.
Earlier this year, the city awarded MAT Asphalt $141 million in
contracts to provide asphalt for road repaving on the same day the
Chicago Department of Public Health finalized a settlement with the
company, requiring it to pay $20,000 in fines and institute other
environmental improvements at the site.
The required improvements were similar to those mandated in the
recent settlement with neighbors, and include odor condensers and a
system to control "blue smoke," which is a common emission from
asphalt plants.
The plant is located about a mile east of the proposed migrant tent
camp in Brighton Park that the state nixed after a report raised
environmental concerns about mercury and other chemicals in the
soil at the site. [GN]
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 14
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Mercury Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRCY)
between December 7, 2020 and June 23, 2023, 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 February 12, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Mercury 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 Mercury class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21166 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 12, 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 misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about Mercury's business and operations.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Mercury's
serial acquiror strategy was not working and Mercury was using
improper revenue recognition practices such as changing to
long-term contracts to mask deteriorating organic growth; (2) the
acquisition would cause Physical Optics Corporation ("POC") to lose
its small business accreditation, which would prevent POC from
winning contracts that made up a large portion of its historical
business; (3) Mercury had at least twenty programs that were
suffering and not performing well; (4) Mercury's 1MPACT strategic
growth initiative to increase margins was not working and was in
fact cutting into margins; and (5) as result, Mercury's statements
about its financial performance and its ability to meet its lofty
projections were based on false assumptions. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Mercury class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21166 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.
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]
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional investor and defined benefit pension fund North
Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighters' Pension Plan
filed a class action lawsuit against Mercury Systems, Inc.
("Mercury" or the "Company"), Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert,
alleging they defrauded investors by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the state of Mercury's business and financial
results.
The suit, brought in federal court in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts was filed by leading
investor law firm Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or acquired Mercury common stock between December 7, 2020
and June 23, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is
captioned North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
Firefighters' Pension Plan v. Mercury Systems, Inc., Mark Aslett,
and Michael Ruppert, 1:23-cv-13065 (D. Mass.).
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, Mercury is a
technology company that produces component modules and subsystems
for the aerospace and defense industries. Prior to and during the
Class Period, Mercury was a serial acquirer that used acquisitions
and improper revenue recognition practices to mask its inability to
grow organically. During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly
touted the success of the Company's growth, painting a false rosy
financial picture for investors. Defendants repeatedly misled
investors to believe that their growth was organic by
misrepresenting several elements of Mercury's business, including
by hiding that Mercury had switched from "point-in-time" to
"long-term contracts" in order to improperly boost reported
revenues and that several of Mercury's projects were in significant
distress, including projects related to Mercury's acquisition of
Physical Optics Corporation. Mercury also lied to investors about
its strategic growth initiative, 1MPACT, which was designed to
improve profit margins but unbeknownst to investors was used to
disguise regular expenses as restructuring costs, enabling Mercury
to claim that recurring expenses were one-time costs.
The market was thus shocked when Glasshouse Research issued a short
seller report on July 26, 2022 that revealed the truth of these
issues. The issuance of the report from Glasshouse Research caused
Mercury's stock to drop 7.8%. The full truth of the state of
Mercury's business was then revealed piecemeal to the market
through several partial disclosures that took place between July
26, 2022 and June 23, 2023. During this time, the Company's share
price declined nearly 50%, wiping out billions of dollars in market
capitalization and damaging investors.
For investors who purchased or acquired Mercury common stock during
the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may
be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a
court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the
relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court by no later than February 12, 2024, which is
the lead plaintiff deadline that was established by publication of
this notice on December 13, 2023. You do not need seek to become a
lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may
also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this
action.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights, please contact Caitlin M. Moyna at
Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8513, or via email at
cmoyna@gelaw.com.
Contacts:
Grant & Eisenhofer
Caitlin M. Moyna
646-722-8513
cmoyna@gelaw.com [GN]
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Edge Retirement Accounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Corbin, writing for Barrons, reports that an investor is
suing Merrill Lynch for breach of contract, alleging that the firm
offered paltry interest rates on cash sweep accounts held by
retirement clients in the self-directed Merrill Edge channel.
The lawsuit, brought by Margaret McCrary, a Merrill client in
Michigan who rolled over her 401(k) account to an IRA with the
brokerage, seeks certification as a class action that would
represent investors who held Merrill Edge retirement accounts since
March 2022. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: RCSD Joins Class Suit Over Social Media Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alek Lewis, writing for RiverheadLOCAL, reports that The Riverhead
Central School District is joining a federal class action lawsuit
against technology companies to pursue damages for the harm social
media platforms have on adolescent mental health.
The Riverhead Board of Education on Dec. 12 authorized "social
media" litigation against confidential parties and approved a
contract with Frantz Law Group, a California-based personal injury
law firm to represent the district, and the district's counsel,
Guercio & Guercio LLP.
School board president Colin Palmer confirmed the district was
joining the class action against major social media companies such
as Facebook, Google, TikTok, Instagram, Roblox, Snapchat and other
affiliated people and companies. The lawsuit alleges the platforms
are designed to addict children and teens, lack meaningful parental
controls and other safeguards, and knowingly harm kids.
Frantz Law Group joined the litigation on behalf of other school
districts earlier this year. Other school districts and more than
half the states in the country have joined the lawsuit, including
New York State.
Under the agreement with the district, Frantz Law Group will
receive 25% of any settlement or recovery obtained in the lawsuit
and Guercio & Guercio will receive 25% of net attorney fees for
acting as co-counsel. The district is not responsible for paying
any money to Frantz Law Group other than what is recovered in a
settlement.
"So if it doesn't go anywhere, it's no skin off the district's
back. We're not liable for anything financially," Palmer said.
"No one wants to lose out on money to benefit the taxpayers, and
the district's interested," Eric Levine of Guercio & Guercio said.
The lawsuit comes as the concern about the impacts of social media,
especially on younger adults, reaches a tipping point. U.S. Surgeon
General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued an advisory on the risk social
media can have on youth mental health in May and called for action
to better understand the full impact of social media's use on
mental health.
"The most common question parents ask me is, 'is social media safe
for my kids'. The answer is that we don't have enough evidence to
say it's safe, and in fact, there is growing evidence that social
media use is associated with harm to young people's mental health,"
Murthy said in a press release announcing the advisory. "Children
are exposed to harmful content on social media, ranging from
violent and sexual content, to bullying and harassment. And for too
many children, social media use is compromising their sleep and
valuable in-person time with family and friends. We are in the
middle of a national youth mental health crisis, and I am concerned
that social media is an important driver of that crisis -- one that
we must urgently address." [GN]
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for February 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP notifies investors of Microvast Holdings, Inc.
("Microvast") (NASDAQ: MVST) that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed. According to the complaint and throughout the Class
Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was a reasonable
likelihood that Microvast would not be awarded the DOE grant after
due diligence was performed; (2) negotiations between Microvast and
the DOE had ceased and the grant had been rescinded; and (3)
Microvast misrepresented the nature and profitability of its
businesses and partnerships.
The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors who
acquired securities between October 19, 2022 and November 20, 2023.
Investors have until February 5, 2024, to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
If you would like to review the complaint and join the class action
please follow the link below for more information:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/microvast-holdings
There is no cost or obligation to you.
What can Investors Do: Shareholders who incurred losses during the
class period, have until February 5, 2024, to move the court to
become a lead plaintiff in this action. A lead plaintiff will act
on behalf of all other class members in directing the class-action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and
Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys,
please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney
responsible for its content.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101
James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq., (619)
814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
MINOL INC: Dematties Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNADETTE DEMATTIES, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINOL, INC. d/b/a MINOL USA,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-021758 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent
to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time
zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of
Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between those hours. As
such, by and through each of the electronic communications,
Defendant violated FCCPA, says the suit.
Minol, Inc. offers billing services. The Company provides
submetering, utility billing, expense management, water
conservation, and property management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
MOBILE PHLEBOTOMY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Rayford Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TONZANIA RAYFORD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MOBILE PHLEBOTOMY OF CENTRAL MICHIGAN LLC
(AKA MPCM SERVICES), AMANDA BREASBOIS, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01067 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
administering a uniform policy of failing to pay Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals time and one-half their regular rate
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and a collective
of similarly situated individuals who have performed phlebotomy
services and have been misclassified as independent contractors for
Defendants who may opt-in to this case under the federal FLSA.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Lansing, Michigan who
provided phlebotomy services for Defendant in Michigan while
classified as an "independent contractor" from November 2022 until
April 2023.
Mobile Phlebotomy of Central Michigan LLC provides mobile
phlebotomy services to businesses throughout Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Kelly R. McClintock, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 929-4313
E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
mcclintock@bwlawonline.com
MONSANTO CO: Ontario Court Certifies Roundup Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Isabelle Docto, writing for DH Canada, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit against a common weed control brand could give
some Canadians extra cash.
Toronto-based law firm Koskie Minsky LLP announced on Dec. 12 that
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a national
class-action lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer, the companies that
produce Roundup weed control.
The lawsuit alleges that Roundup products, which are
glyphosate-based herbicides, cause non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). It
was launched in 2019 and officially certified as a class action by
courts on December 11.
The judge presiding over the case said a class proceeding would
provide "easier access to justice" and that "it is bound to be more
economical than the pursuit of multiple individual claims."
"Lawsuits of this kind are not for the faint of heart. As is clear
from the experience in the United States so far, glyphosate
litigation has been hard fought," said Justice Grace in his
decision.
The class action against the weed control brand is brought on
behalf of individuals who have been exposed to glyphosate-based
products distributed and sold by Monsanto and Bayer.
Jeffrey DeBlock, an NHL survivor, represents the lawsuit. According
to Koskie Minsky LLP, he was diagnosed with NHL when he was just 17
years old, after using Roundup during his summer job on a local
farm.
After his diagnosis, DeBlock went through extensive treatment,
"which has permanently impacted his health and quality of life."
The lawsuit says he started the class action to seek justice on his
behalf as well as others.
"The certification decision is a significant milestone in our
effort to hold Monsanto and Bayer accountable for the alleged harm
caused by Roundup," says Jonathan Ptak, a partner at Koskie Minsky
LLP.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as
"probably carcinogenic to humans."
The lawsuit alleges that the companies either knew or should have
known that significant exposure to Roundup weed control products
causes cancer, in particular, NHL.
Despite this knowledge, the lawsuit claims that the defendants
continued to distribute and sell these products without providing
sufficient warnings about their potential cancer risks.
The lawsuit also alleges that Monsanto and Bayer engaged in years
of deceptive practices to mislead the public about the safety of
Roundup to safeguard their profits.
Could you be eligible for compensation in this weed control class
action?
According to Koskie Minsky LLP, the class action includes both
those who have developed NHL after significant exposure to Roundup
and those who have not.
"Significant exposure" to the weed control is defined in the
lawsuit as "the application of Roundup on more than two occasions
in a 12-month period and more than 10 occasions in a lifetime."
If you fall under these categories, you can call 1-833-630-1783 or
email roundupclassaction@kmlaw.ca to be included in the class
action.
There are no specifics yet as to how much Canadians could get if
there is a settlement.
"Our legal team is committed to vigorously representing Mr. DeBlock
and all class members. This lawsuit is not only about seeking
compensation for past wrongs but also about ensuring corporate
accountability and public safety going forward," said Ptak.
"The extensive evidence presented in our certification motion
underscores the gravity of the allegations and the importance of
this case." [GN]
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Challenges Subscription List Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quinn Wilson writing for Law360, reports that The National
Association of Realtors says it did not violate privacy laws and
that a Michigan federal judge should side with it in a proposed
class action accusing it of illegally selling its members' personal
information. [GN]
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: Faces Labor Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL
Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against The
Neighborhood House Association (hereinafter, "Neighborhood House
Association") for allegedly failing to provide meal and rest
breaks. The class action lawsuit, Case No.
37-2023-00051180-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego
County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the
Complaint can be read here.
According to the lawsuit, Neighborhood House Association allegedly
violated California Labor Code Sections Sections 201, 202, 203,
204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802
by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3)
provide required meal and rest periods; (4) reimburse for required
business expenses; (5) provide wages when due; and (6) provide
accurate itemized wage statements.
As a result of their rigorous work schedules, Neighborhood House
Association's employees were allegedly unable to take off duty rest
breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for rest periods.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges employees were required from
time-to-time to work in excess of four (4) hours without being
provided ten (10) minute rest periods as a result of their
overburdened work requirements and inadequate staffing. Further,
the lawsuit alleges these employees were denied their first rest
periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at
least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to time, a first and
second rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts
worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to time,
and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten (10)
minutes for some shifts worked of ten (10) hours or more from time
to time. Additionally, Neighborhood House Association's employees
were also allegedly not provided with one-hour wages in lieu
thereof. As a result of their allegedly rigorous work schedules and
inadequate staffing, Neighborhood House Association's employees
were from time to time allegedly denied their proper rest periods
by Neighborhood House Association.
If you would like to know more about the Neighborhood House
Association lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by
calling (619) 255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment.
-THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule
7.2)-
Media Contact:
Jackland Hom, Zakay Law Group, APLC, (619) 255-9047,
jackland@zakaylaw.com, https://zakaylaw.com/ [GN]
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: 9th Circuit Panel Revives False Ad Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Ninth Circuit panel on Dec. 13 revived a
proposed class action alleging Nestle tricked Boost Glucose Control
drink buyers into thinking the beverage can treat diabetes, saying
the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the labeling at issue
was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. [GN]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class of CFI Waiver Members Certified in Fitzmorris
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul J. Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire certifies a class of CFI Waiver participants in
the lawsuit styled Emily Fitzmorris, et al., Plaintiffs v. New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Lori
Weaver, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025-PB (D.N.H.).
The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are disabled
individuals, who are enrolled in New Hampshire's Choices for
Independence (CFI) Waiver program, a Medicaid program administered
by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS). The CFI Waiver program provides home and community-based
care services to adults, who would otherwise be Medicaid-eligible
for nursing home care.
The Plaintiffs contend that DHHS's deficient operation of the CFI
Waiver program has caused participants to be deprived of necessary
medical services in violation of the Medicaid Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs
filed an initial motion for class certification, which Judge
Barbadoro denied without prejudice after finding that they failed
to establish commonality as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)(2). The Plaintiffs have now filed a renewed motion
for class certification, supported by additional evidence.
The Named Plaintiffs, Emily Fitzmorris and Kathleen Bates, are
disabled New Hampshire residents, who have been authorized to
receive a range of waiver services pursuant to the CFI Waiver
program. Fitzmorris is a 38-year-old mother, who became a
tetraplegic as a result of an accident in 2018. She uses an
electric wheelchair and requires assistance transferring from her
bed to her wheelchair, emptying and cleaning her urinary catheter,
dressing, bathing, preparing meals, and maintaining a clean home.
To meet these needs, Fitzmorris's case management agency determined
that she requires 68 hours per week of home care services.
Nonetheless, since 2019, Fitzmorris has only received a "small
portion" of her authorized CFI Waiver services during the weekdays,
and almost no services on the weekends.
Ms. Bates is 61 years-old and has been diagnosed with cerebral
palsy and quadriplegia. She works as a disability advocate and
lives alone in her two-bedroom home. Bates uses a wheelchair and
requires assistance transferring from her bed to her wheelchair,
toileting, bathing, and dressing. She has been authorized to
receive 49 hours of waiver services each week, but often receives
less because her service providers quit unexpectedly or simply do
not show up.
The Named Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and
a putative class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that
they and their fellow class members "suffer protracted delays in
the onset of all or part of their waiver services, frequent
interruptions in their waiver services, and/or the unexpected
cessation of their waiver services." They allege that these
so-called "service gaps" place them at a serious risk of
unjustified institutionalization and are the result of the
Defendants' maladministration of the CFI Waiver program.
The Plaintiffs allege various violations of Title II, 42 U.S.C.
Section 12132; and the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396(a)(8).
Counts I and III of their complaint allege violations of the
integration mandate. Counts II and IV allege violations of the
methods of administration regulation. Count V alleges violations of
the Medicaid Act's reasonable promptness requirement. Each of these
claims center on the Defendants' alleged failure to provide CFI
Waiver participants with the services they have been authorized to
receive.
The complaint also alleges that the Defendants violated the
Medicaid Act (Count VII) and the Due Process Clause (Count VI) by
failing to notify the Plaintiffs of their right to a hearing to
challenge the Defendants' failure to close their service gaps.
Judge Barbadoro granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on those counts in a prior order (Fitzmorris v. Weaver, 2023 DNH
025, 2023 WL 2665397, *1 (D.N.H. Mar. 28, 2023)).
The Plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification that
argued class action treatment was appropriate because every member
of the class shared a serious risk of institutionalization as a
result of the Defendants' systematic failure to provide them with
the services they were authorized to receive under the CFI Waiver
program.
Judge Barbadoro concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish
commonality as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
because they did not offer sufficient evidence that the class was
uniformly subjected to a common policy or practice that allegedly
drives their shared harm. Accordingly, the Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion, but without prejudice to their ability to file
a renewed motion supported by evidence of drivers common to either
the class as a whole or discrete subclasses.
The Plaintiffs have now filed a renewed motion for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2). They seek to certify a class of
CFI Waiver participants who, during the pendency of this lawsuit,
have been placed at serious risk of unjustified
institutionalization because the Defendants, by act or omission,
fail to ensure that the CFI participants receive the
community-based long term care services and supports through the
waiver program for which they have been found eligible and assessed
to need.
The Defendants object, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not
satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Plaintiffs assert that class certification is warranted under
Rule 23(b)(2) because their claims arise out of system-wide
practices that cause class members to suffer service gaps in
violation of Title II, Section 504, and the Medicaid Act. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' proposed class does not
satisfy the implicit requirements of class certification because
the class cannot be ascertained by reference to objective criteria
and, moreover, constitutes an impermissible "fail-safe" class. They
further assert that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the
numerosity, typicality, or commonality requirements, nor have they
demonstrated that their class fits within the confines of Rule
23(b)(2).
Judge Barbadoro holds that even if the Defendants are correct that
identifying class members would require individualized litigation,
it would not warrant the denial of class certification. Judge
Barbadoro declines to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on the basis of any implied requirements of Rule 23
and proceed to consider whether the textual requirements of Rule
23(a) and (b)(2) are satisfied.
Judge Barbadoro also finds that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied.
For these reasons, the parties' respective motions to exclude
expert opinions are denied and the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification is granted.
The Court certifies the class of:
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 through
the waiver program for which they have been found eligible
and assessed to need.
Plaintiffs Emily Fitzmorris and Kathleen Bates are appointed as
class representatives, and their chosen counsel are appointed as
class counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 27,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yrn63drafrom
PacerMonitor.com.
NEW ZEALAND: Christchurch High Court OKs Suit Over Land Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for InsuranceBusiness, reports that a
class action against Toka Tu Ake EQC, also known as the Earthquake
Commission of New Zealand, has been authorised by the Christchurch
High Court.
"Leave is granted to the plaintiffs to bring this proceeding
against EQC as a representative action on behalf of all persons who
meet the class definition," Associate Judge Paulsen, referring to
plaintiffs Lucinda McEvedy and Andrew Freer, said in her judgment
on Dec. 14.
Represented by insurance lawyer Grant Shand and Andrew Barker KC,
McEvedy and Freer -- whose property in Shirley suffered increased
liquefaction vulnerability (ILV) land damage in the 2010/2011
Canterbury earthquakes and whose claim was settled by EQC in 2017
by payment of its assessment of the diminution of value (DOV) of
the land -- were found suitable to advance the common issues on
behalf of the represented class.
The common issues were outlined in the 44-page judgment seen by
Insurance Business.
In a release, Shand's camp said the case "could be one of the
largest class actions New Zealand has ever seen," given that EQC,
as indicated in the court document, settled over 99.5% of all ILV
claims on a DOV basis.
Following the greenlight, Shand commented: "Our clients believed it
was wrong for EQC to settle land claims the way it did and
continues to do so. It used, for the first time in EQC history, a
process that settles land damaged by crust thinning or increased
liquefaction vulnerability by a diminution of value methodology and
not what it actually costs to repair the land.
"The judge has found that there are issues common across thousands
of EQC land claims and therefore a class action is appropriate."
He went on to point out: "EQC paid McEvedy and Freer just $22,000
for their land damage and, had the assessment been undertaken
correctly, that figure should have been at least $160,000. And of
the in excess of 13,000 properties assessed with ILV land damage,
only 15 received money based on the actual cost to repair their
land."
It was ruled that the representative action should proceed on an
opt-out basis, i.e. anyone who meets the definition is an outright
class member unless they opt out.
"As this is an opt-out class action, it's likely the numbers
involved will be significant," Shand said.
According to the judgment, the plaintiffs are to file and serve any
memoranda addressing directions for the future conduct of the
proceeding by January 19, 2024. The EQC, which has not issued a
statement on the judgment as of this writing, will have until
February 2 to file and serve their memoranda in response. The
plaintiffs can then reply by February 9. [GN]
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 14
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of ON Semiconductor Corporation
("onsemi") (NASDAQ: ON) between May 1, 2023 and October 27, 2023,
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 February 12, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased onsemi 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 onsemi class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21160 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 12, 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 misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about onsemi's business and operations.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented that: (1) revenues from
billions of dollars in reported long-term supply agreements
("LTSAs") were "committed" and "locked in," and were effectively
certain to be obtained by onsemi when, in fact, onsemi could and
would abrogate the LTSAs at a customer's request; (2) LTSAs
provided "predictable" and "sustainable" performance to drive
onsemi's growth, even in tough macroeconomic conditions, when, in
fact, they would be modified or eliminated as conditions changed;
and (3) defendants had "good visibility" into customer demand when,
in fact, demand could be reduced on short notice, even where LTSAs
were in effect. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the onsemi class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21160 mailto: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]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Metamucil False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that The
Procter & Gamble Co. is facing a class action lawsuit alleging its
fiber supplement Metamucil is falsely advertised as being safe and
effective yet fails to disclose to consumers that the product
contains dangerous amounts of lead.
Plaintiff Regina Pellegrino says she purchased orange-flavored
Metamucil made with real sugar on multiple occasions between 2020
and 2022. She says she relied on P&G's claims that the product was
safe and healthy for consumption and would provide the advertised
health benefits.
Had she known that the Metamucil product contained unsafe levels of
lead, she would not have purchased it or paid a premium for it, the
Metamucil class action lawsuit alleges.
Metamucil lead content poses health risks, plaintiff says
Lead exposure reportedly poses a host of potential health risks,
and exposure is particularly harmful for children.
"At high levels of exposure, lead attacks the brain and central
nervous system, and can cause convulsions, comas and death," the
Metamucil class action lawsuit says. "Moreover, children who
survive lead poisoning may be left intellectually disabled or with
behavioral disorders."
Additionally, lead exposure can cause anemia, hypertension, renal
impairment, toxicity to the reproductive organs, type 2 diabetes
and cancer, the Metamucil lead class action says.
Independent laboratory testing in July 2023 reportedly found high
Metamucil lead content, with each serving containing significantly
more than the daily limit allowable under California's Proposition
65.
Pellegrino points out that California implemented Proposition 65,
which sets forth a maximum allowable dose level of 0.5 micrograms
per day, to help consumers avoid adverse health effects from
consuming lead.
Metamucil class action: Products falsely advertised as safe,
effective
P&G markets its Metamucil products as safe and effective at
providing health benefits such as digestive health, appetite
control and healthy blood sugar levels, Pellegrino says.
However, not only does P&G not disclose the unhealthy Metamucil
lead content, but the products also contain added sugar that
allegedly damage digestive health, decrease appetite control and
harm blood sugar levels.
Pellegrino also notes that each Metamucil product includes a
"Doctor Recommended" statement that "adds credibility" to the
claims that the products are healthy, safe and effective even
though they do not provide the promised health benefits and may put
consumers' health at risk.
Pellegrino seeks to represent a class of New York consumers who
purchased one or more Metamucil products in the last three years.
The Metamucil class action lawsuit asserts claims for unfair and
deceptive business practices and false advertising.
A Metamucil class action lawsuit filed last year in California
federal court says P&G falsely markets Metamucil products as
providing certain health benefits that they do not provide.
What do you think about the Metamucil lead content allegations?
Join the discussion in the comments!
Pellegrino is represented by Jack Fitzgerald of Fitzgerald Joseph
LLP.
The Metamucil lead class action lawsuit is Regina Pellegrino v. The
Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-10631, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
R.H. PETERSON: Faces Mancia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELBA MANCIA, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General, Plaintiff v. R.H. PETERSON CO., a California corporation
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 23STCV29113 (Cal.
Super., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor
practices in violation of the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to comply with California
law concerning payment of lawful wage for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to pay minimum wage;
(3) failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; (4) failing to
provide timely meal breaks; (5) failing to provide rest breaks; (6)
failing to provide proper cool-down rest periods; (7) failing to
provide safe working conditions (8) failing to reimburse for
required business expenses; and (9) failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements.
Plaintiff Mancia worked for the Defendant as an hourly, nonexempt
assembly worker from 2017 until June 2023.
R.H. Petersen Co. is a manufacturer of premium gas grill, fireplace
and outdoor fire feature products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Use of Email Tracking Tools
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims Saks.com, the e-commerce division of
designer clothing retailer Saks Fifth Avenue, secretly embeds
tracking technology into marketing emails.
The 15-page lawsuit alleges that Saks.com has "knowingly"
incorporated into promotional emails tracking tools called "spy
pixels," which record data about each email delivery for the
benefit of the company's targeted marketing efforts. The suit
charges that Saks.com has collected this information without
consent from subscribers to its email list, in violation of state
law.
According to the case, the company utilizes a third-party email
tracking system called "richrelevance," along with its own spy
pixel, to record subscriber information, including email addresses,
email subjects and when and where each email is opened. The spyware
also captures email path data and subscribers' IP addresses and
device details, the complaint relays.
The plaintiff, a Phoenix resident and subscriber to Saks.com's
email list, says she has often received and opened marketing emails
from the company, and claims that by doing so, her private email
records and personal information were collected by the defendant
without her knowledge or authorization, in violation of Arizona's
Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act.
Per the case, the Arizona law prohibits a company from procuring or
attempting to procure the communication service records of email
recipients without their authorization.
The complaint contends that by "spying on" when subscribers open
and read their emails, Saks.com has invaded consumers' privacy
rights and intruded upon their seclusion.
The lawsuit looks to represent any Arizona residents who have
opened a marketing email containing a tracking pixel from Saks.com.
[GN]
SELFDISRUPT LLC: Harris Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELFDISRUPT LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-021723 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Nov. 29,
2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of
Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to
communicate with him between those hours. As such, by and through
the electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, says the
suit.
SelfDisrupt LLC is a Florida limited liability company, with its
principal place of business located in Fort Lauderdale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Alleges Supra-Competitive Prices, Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
M&D PETERSON, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP
APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT
GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S.,
LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.;
CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.;
AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04711 (E.D. Pa., Nov.
29, 2023) arises from Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the
prices for: (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, (c)
admixtures for mortar, and (d) products containing or bundled with
any of the foregoing (collectively, "CCAs").
According to the complaint, Defendants' unlawful agreement caused
direct purchasers of CCAs in the United States and its territories,
including Plaintiff and the Class, to pay supra-competitive prices
for CCAs sold by Defendants in the United States and its
territories from the period beginning no later than May 11, 2018
and running through the date on which any Class herein is
certified, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The
Defendants' scheme included both price increases and the imposition
of surcharges on CCAs sold in the United States, says the suit.
Further, the Defendants' agreement became increasingly effective as
they consolidated their market power, and prices for CCAs continued
to rise. The onset of COVID in 2021, however, supercharged
Defendants' conspiracy. With no meaningful check on their pricing
power, Defendants agreed to institute (a) price increases on the
CCAs, and (b) surcharges on top of those price increases, including
shipping surcharges and raw material surcharges, the suit asserts.
Sika AG is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that
supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry,
headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com
kberan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, NW Suite 300
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: ngiddings@hausfeld.com
- and -
Scott Martin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 633-4980
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC
111 W. 2nd Street Suite 1100
Jamestown, NY 14701
Telephone: (716) 664-2967
E-mail: bailey@rupppfalzgraf.com
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 14
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
SEDG) between February 22, 2022 and October 19, 2023, 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 2, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased SolarEdge securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the SolarEdge class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21152 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 2, 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 Complaint, defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about SolarEdge's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) SolarEdge's Company's distribution
channels in Europe had higher than optimal inventory levels; (2) as
a result, SolarEdge was experiencing substantial cancellations and
pushouts of existing backlog from its European distributors; (3) as
a result, SolarEdge's backlog and guidance was overstated; and (4)
as a result, defendants' statements about SolarEdge's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the SolarEdge class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21152 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.
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]
TENDER & TRUE PET: Kouyoumdjian Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Henry Kouyoumdjian, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TENDER & TRUE PET
NUTRITION, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability corporation, Case No.
23STCV24993 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 1, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-10140.
The Action purports to allege claims of violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code, false and
misleading advertising in violation of Business & Professions Code
and violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code (the "Complaint").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David A Yudelson, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 909-7775
Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
Email: dyudelson@constangy.com
TENET HEALTHCARE: Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, d/b/a
METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2381-CV-02693 was removed from
the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12978-PBS.
The Amended Complaint alleges nine counts: negligence; negligence
per se; invasion of privacy; breach of implied contract; unjust
enrichment; breach of fiduciary duty; violation of Massachusetts'
Right to Privacy Law; violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act; and violation of the Massachusetts Wiretap
Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew R. Dennington, Esq.
CONN KAVANAUGH ROSENTHAL PEISCH & FORD LLP
One Federal Street, 15th Floor
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 482-8300
Email: adennington@connkavanaugh.com
TOMOCREDIT INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tomocredit, Inc. The
case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tomocredit, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-04561 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
TomoCredit -- https://tomocredit.com/ -- is a fintech company that
focuses on helping young adults build and establish good credit
scores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq.
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED
539 W. Commerce St., Ste. 1899
Dallas, TX 75208
Phone: (972) 767-9099
Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com
mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Gera Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
UiPath Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Gera class suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On September 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against UiPath, Co-CEO Daniel Dines, and CFO Ashim Gupta,
captioned Samhita Gera v. UiPath, Inc., et. al. (Case No.
1:23-cv-07908) (the "Securities Action").
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and alleges that defendants made material
misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's
competitive position and its financial results.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath common stock
between April 21, 2021 and March 30, 2022.
It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate.
The proceeding is at a very early stage.
UiPath, Inc. is a global provider of robotic process automation
software.[BN]
UNION BANK AND TRUST: Bender Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Paul F. Bender, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Union Bank and Trust Company, Case
No. 8:23-cv-00298 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12987-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Union Bank & Trust Company -- http://www.ubt.com/-- is a privately
owned, state chartered commercial bank headquartered in Lincoln,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 212-4954
Email: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com
- and -
Elena A. Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW FIRM
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Phone: (917) 716-7132
Email: elena@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Eric D. Barton, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Email: ebarton@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP (NA)
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
UNION INSTITUTE: Richard-Allerdyce Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Diane Richard-Allerdyce, Karen Baird, Katrina Bales, Carol Barrett
Sargent, Sarah Bergh, Nancy Boxill, Gregory Luke Chwala, Daniel
Diaz, Debby Flickinger, Elden Golden, Daniel G. Ogbaharya, Matthew
N. Pappathan, Linwood Rumney, Woden Teachout, Yulia Tolstikov-Mast,
Chris Voparil, Charlotte Thornton, Robert Cotter, Tracy Neher, Mary
Amos, Jonina Anderson Lopez, Frances Carter, Nicki Black, Brian
Dragoo, Ana Ines-Hernandez, Amy Obszarski, Jennifer Raymond, Covia
Boyd, Adam Wickert, Kathryn Class and Theresa Warren, and all other
similarly situated employees v. UNION INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY, THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNION INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY, EDGAR L.
SMITH, JR., DR. JEFFREY M. SHEPARD, DONALD FELDMAN, ROGER ALLBEE,
KAREN BIESTMAN, DR. GLADYS GOSSET HANKINS, DR. EDWIN C. MARSHALL,
CHRISTINE VAN DUELMAN, AND DR. KAREN SCHUSTER WEBB, Case No.
1:23-cv-00796-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 5, 2023), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act ("OMFWSA") as result of the Defendant failing to pay
Plaintiffs minimum wage for the hours worked.
The Defendants have violated the Ohio Constitution, Article II,
Section 34a, by failing to pay at least the Ohio minimum wage for
each year during the relevant time period. The Defendants have
breached their contractual obligations to Plaintiffs in violation
of Ohio Common Law for unjust enrichment. The Defendants are
estopped from denying promises made to Plaintiffs under Ohio Common
Law. The Defendants are liable for the tortious interference with
Plaintiffs' employment contracts for the misrepresentations made by
Defendant Webb on behalf of and in her capacity as President of
Defendant Union regarding Plaintiffs' wages and/or benefits.
The Defendants are liable for the negligent misrepresentations made
by Defendant Webb on behalf of and in her capacity as President of
Defendant Union to Plaintiffs regarding their wages and/or
benefits. The Defendants are liable for the gross negligent conduct
from Defendant Webb's misrepresentations made on behalf of and in
her capacity as President of Defendant Union to Plaintiffs
regarding their wages and/or benefits. The Defendants were
negligent per se by failing to handle Plaintiffs' fringe benefits
with the care required under OPPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs all worked for Defendant Union during the 2023
calendar year.
Union is a university that employs both hourly, stipend and
salaried employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody D. Woods, Esq.
Rachel J. Guin, Esq.
ROTHBERG LAW FIRM
505 E. Washington Blvd.
Fort Wayne, IN 46859
Phone: (260) 422-9454
Fax: (260) 422-1622
Email: cwoods@rothberg.com
rguin@rothberg.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: 614-221-4221
Fax: 614-744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.co
UNION PACIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Schifferdecker, writing for KAKE, reports that Union
Pacific is filing to have a class action lawsuit against it
dismissed saying it violates both Kansas and federal law. The
plaintiff's head attorney says he doesn't think its reasons are
strong enough and he believes the community effected needs to be
compensated.
Environmental lawyer and one of the head attorneys for the
plaintiff's Chris Nidel says the property value being damaged from
living in a contaminated area is only the tip of the iceberg in
ways people living in a northeast Wichita neighborhood have been
impacted.
"You talk to families with a legacy of cancer and other health
effects that is likely the direct result of this irresponsible,
negligent, reckless behavior on behalf of Union Pacific," said
Chris Nidel, environmental lawyer and one of the head attorneys
representing the plaintiffs in this case.
In his opinion Union Pacific is hiding behind what he calls
formalities in the law to try to get the lawsuit dismissed.
"They're not denying that they are the source of this contamination
or that it has had an effect on the community at large. But they're
simply trying to escape responsibility or shirk responsibility for
what it is they've done," he said.
In the motion to dismiss, Union Pacific's lawyers say the lawsuit
is barred by federal law and violates two Kansas laws, one being
the statue of limitations. This meaning the plaintiffs didn't file
the lawsuit in a timely manner since the accident.
Nidel thinks there are protections in the law for the community
affected, and he is ready to fight to prove it.
"We believe in our claim. We believe that this community was
deceived," he said.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court says Union Pacific
hid the presence of the contaminants and their release decades ago.
It spread from the 29th and Grove environmental site to a large
portion of a nearby neighborhood causing decades worth of harm.
Nidel says Union Pacific didn't let people in the area know about
it and those affected didn't know until fall of 2022.
This is really about human lives and the effect on real people that
have now long suffered as a result of this contamination," he said
Nidel explains if any change were to come from the motion to
dismiss it would likely be an amendment to the original complaint.
He says he wants union pacific to stop hiding and take
accountability.
"Union Pacific and their conduct from the past is the source for
this contamination. This contamination needs to be cleaned up and
these people need to be compensated," he said.
In a statement Union Pacific tells KAKE News:
"We will continue to cooperate with the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment (KDHE) to investigate and address the spill's
effects. KDHE oversees Union Pacific's cleanup efforts at the site
under state and federal regulations. Union Pacific remains
dedicated to working in collaboration with KDHE, the Sedgwick
County Health Department, the City of Wichita and community leaders
on the cleanup and remediation of the site." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Parks Sues Over Air Marshals' Race Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PARKS, CHAD SUTTON, DR. SUKEENA STEPHENS, and FREEMAN
JORDAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03561 (D.D.C., Nov. 29, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's ongoing pattern, practice, and culture
of race discrimination in denying Plaintiffs and other qualified
African American air marshals promotional opportunities,
particularly with respect to upper management positions.
According to the complaint, Transportation Security
Administration's promotional decisions are made by a small group of
executive leaders who are almost exclusively white men. Despite
paying lip service to wanting diversity in the force, when it comes
to upper management positions, TSA cherry picks favorites to be
promoted, and relies on arbitrary decision-making to foreclose
promotions from African American marshals who are qualified for
advancement. Instead of being a meritocracy, TSA top brass is a
frat club, where decision-makers choose who they would like to join
the club, the suit says.
As such, the Defendant has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1967 in creating disparate terms and conditions of
employment for African Americans, and in denying them equal
promotional opportunities as white agents at the TSA, alleges the
suit.
The Plaintiffs are group of long-tenured African American
Transportation Security Administration employees, who are part of
the Federal Air Marshals Service.
Alejandro Mayorkas is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela Keith, Esq.
Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE, LLC
650 Massachusetts Ave NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 800-0292
E-mail: pamkeith@centerforemploymentjustice.com
scottlempert@centerforemploymentjustice.com
- and -
Jeffrey T. Schrameck, Esq.
SCHRAMECK LAW, P.L.L.C
42180 Ford Road Suite 275
Canton, MI 48187
Telephone: (734) 454-5400
E-mail: jeff@schramecklaw.com
UNITED STATES: VA Must Face Homeless Disabled Veterans' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda F. Hersey, writing for Stars and Stripes, reports that a
federal district court judge in California has refused to dismiss a
class-action lawsuit demanding the Department of Veterans Affairs
provide housing to thousands of disabled veterans living in
encampments and on the streets of Los Angeles.
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, in a ruling on Dec. 14,
described housing needs as urgent, stating the number of homeless
veterans has tripled since an earlier lawsuit brought against the
VA was settled in 2015 yet failed to yield adequate results.
"It is unclear how many veterans have died on the streets of Los
Angeles in that time never having received housing or services,"
Carter wrote in the Powers v. McDonough case, heard in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
The judge ordered both sides to "expedite a timeline" and move the
lawsuit forward. The case is expected to advance to trial if a
settlement is not reached. The next hearing date is scheduled for
January 2024.
Defendants in the case are VA Secretary Denis McDonough, Steve
Braverman, director of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare
System, and Keith Harris, senior executive homelessness agent with
the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.
"This is the greatest legal decision on behalf of veterans," said
Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We are ready to go
to trial in June or July [2024] and we are going to win because of
the story of these veterans taking on a nation that has not served
them. The only remaining questions is whether the administration
and Congress will fight the veterans or reach a settlement
[finding] that 'unhoused veteran' is an oxymoron in America."
Jeffrey Powers, a 60-year-old Navy veteran, is among a dozen
plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, along with the National Veterans
Foundation. Plaintiffs were identified as homeless veterans in
greater Los Angeles diagnosed with serious mental illness, brain
injuries and/or physical disabilities.
"The judge has been very focused on what is best for the veteran
and putting an end to the finger-pointing," Powers said. "He wants
to get this problem fixed and made it clear he will not allow [the
VA] to do nothing.
"I am happy about this ruling for myself and the veterans who will
come after me, so that they do not have to go through this," said
Powers, who lived in a tiny shed and before that a tent, which he
abandoned because of a rat infestation at the encampment.
Los Angeles has roughly 4,000 unhoused veterans, according to a
2023 census count of homeless veterans conducted by the Los Angeles
Homeless Services Authority. That number represents a 12% rise from
the previous year.
At issue is the future of a nearly 400-acre gated campus in West
Los Angeles held in a charitable trust for housing and supportive
services for veterans with disabilities. Veterans have camped on
the sidewalk outside the campus, where VA health services are
located.
The plaintiffs' attorneys argued the land has been inappropriately
leased by the VA for business developments unrelated to veterans'
health care and housing, breaching the VA's fiduciary duty as
trustee.
The lawsuit, filed in November 2022, further argued the Greater Los
Angeles VA does not offer "anything close to adequate permanent
supportive housing" at the campus.
Two buildings with veterans housing opened on the campus in the
summer, bringing the number of housing developments for veterans to
three.
A VA spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity said the
developments demonstrate "forward momentum on this critical
project."
"While there is still much work to do, VA is working aggressively
to combat veteran homelessness in the Greater Los Angeles area,
providing 1,464 homeless veterans with permanent housing thus far
this year, which is the most of any city in America and on pace to
exceed VA's calendar year goal for 2023," he wrote in an email.
More than $140 million has been invested at the West LA campus by
the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in the past three
years, according to the VA.
But the funding is not enough to meet the housing needs of the
city's homeless disabled veterans.
At the same time, portions of the campus have been leased by the VA
for oil drilling, a private school and university athletic fields.
Disabled homeless veterans meanwhile "are unable to meaningfully
access" VA health care services located on the campus, according to
the complaint.
They are effectively denied access to medical, mental health and
other services by the health care system because of their
situations, attorneys said.
The complaint argued Powers and the other plaintiffs do not "want
to live in an institution in order to receive services."
"The government they served has refused to serve them and, far from
welcoming them home, has left them homeless," according to the
complaint, which argued the veterans are shut out of services and
live on the streets or in conditions outside "the magnificent WLA
campus."
Numerous studies show homeless individuals with traumatic brain
injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia and severe
depression need to be stabilized in community housing near services
and support, according to the complaint.
Veterans "are being unnecessarily institutionalized or placed at
serious risk of institutionalization, solely by virtue of their
disabilities, which represents unlawful discrimination," according
to the complaint. [GN]
USAA CASUALTY: MSP Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade County State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series 44, LLC, and
others, Plaintiffs v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA
General Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22775-RNS
(S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida grants the Recovery Companies'
motion and remands the case to the Circuit Court for the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County.
The Plaintiffs in this case, MSP Recovery Claims, Series 44, LLC;
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; and MSPA Claims I, LLC
(collectively the "Recovery Companies"), on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others, similarly situated in Florida (collectively
the "Class"), are assignees of various health-benefit providers
("Secondary Payors") and claim they may be entitled to
reimbursement from the Defendants, USAA Casualty Insurance Company
and USAA General Indemnity Company (together "USAA").
To that end, the Recovery Companies initiated a case in state
court, seeking declaratory relief (count one) and a pure bill of
discovery (count two) regarding their putative claims. USAA
thereafter removed this case, relying on both the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), as well as federal-question jurisdiction.
The Recovery Companies now argue that their case should be remanded
back to state court because this action does not (1) satisfy the
amount-in-controversy threshold or (2) present a federal question.
USAA has responded, the Recovery Companies have timely replied.
After considering the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal
authorities, the Court grants the Recovery Companies' motion and
remands this case back to state court.
Various Secondary Payors, including Medicaid Managed Care
Organizations and Medicare Advantage Organizations, made payments
on behalf of their enrollees (also referred to as "Members") for
medical expenses those enrollees incurred as a result of car
accidents or other incidents. Some of those Secondary Payors
assigned collection rights they might have, by way of those
payments, to the Recovery Companies. The Recovery Companies believe
they are entitled to reimbursement from USAA for those
medical-expense payments, having sent USAA "over 800 reimbursement
demands" and having "filed 157 Civil Remedy Notices" in an attempt
"to resolve these reimbursement demands," all "to no avail."
The Recovery Companies complain that USAA, in rejecting their
demands and notices, refuses to coordinate benefits, withholding
information about the enrollees' USAA coverage and whether USAA has
previously directly reimbursed healthcare providers for the
enrollees' medical expenses. The Recovery Companies also submit
that USAA improperly insists that the Recovery Companies must
comply with various Florida statutory provisions, and jump through
other administrative hoops, before USAA would be required to
reimburse them.
In addition to the past demands, the Recovery Companies describe
this as an ongoing bona fide present controversy that they expect
will persist and have continued consequences on future claims. In
addition to seeking a pure bill of discovery, aimed at obtaining
information related to USAA's insureds, the Recovery Companies, on
their own behalf and on behalf of the putative Class, also ask the
Court to declare the following:
a. the USAA Defendants must determine whether their insureds
are also Members covered by Secondary Payors, and if so,
then, the USAA Defendants must coordinate benefits with
Secondary Payors;
b. the USAA Defendants must alert Secondary Payors of their
primary obligations pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section
627.736(4) as well as other statutes and regulations;
c. Unlike Healthcare Providers lawfully rendering treatment to
an injured person for a bodily injury covered by personal
injury protection ("PIP") insurance, Secondary Payors are
not required to submit a demand for reimbursement on a
properly completed 1500 Claim Form, UB 92 Form, or any
other standard form under Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(d);
and
d. Secondary Payors are not required to comply with strict
requirements of Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(10), when
seeking reimbursement demand and that:
i. the USAA Defendants must notify the Secondary Payors
of the name of the insured upon which such benefits
are primary;
ii. Secondary Payors are not required to provide a
standard "assignment" typically given to providers by
insureds; and
iii. the USAA Defendants must notify the Secondar Payors of
the claim number or policy number upon which such
claim was originally submitted to the USAA Defendants.
Although the Recovery Companies initiated this case in state court
in 2018, it was not until they filed their second amended
complaint, in July 2023, that, according to USAA, their case became
removable. As USAA describes it, the "Second Amended Complaint both
introduces a federal question and is an 'other paper' for purposes
of establishing the amount in controversy."
CAFA grants subject-matter jurisdiction to federal district courts
"over class actions in which (1) any member of the plaintiff class
is a citizen of a state different from the state of citizenship of
any defendant, (2) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5
million, and (3) the proposed plaintiff class contains at least 100
members," S. Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 745 F.3d
1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2014).
Here, the parties' dispute centers around the second element -- the
amount in controversy.
The Recovery Companies argue this case should be remanded for two
reasons: one, USAA fails to establish that this action meets
Section 1332(a)'s $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold; and
two, USAA fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction. After
review, the Court agrees on both fronts.
Judge Scola finds that the aggregate amount in controversy in this
case does not exceed $5 million, and that the complaint does not
present a federal question. The Court finds that USAA has not shown
that the Plaintiffs' claims really and substantially involve a
dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or
effect of federal law.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Recovery Companies' motion
for remand, denies as moot USAA's motion to file a sur-reply, and
remands this case to state court. The Court directs the Clerk to
close this case and take all necessary steps to ensure the prompt
remand of this matter and the transfer of this file back to the
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County.
Because the Court cannot consider USAA's motion to dismiss prior to
assessing the jurisdictional issues, and because the Court
concludes remand is warranted, the motion to dismiss is held over
for resolution by the state court. Accordingly, the Clerk is
directed to terminate the motion to dismiss as no longer pending
before this Court and any other pending motions are denied as
moot.
Finally, the Court denies the Recovery Companies' request for
attorney's fees and cost under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). While the
issuance of this order, along with others from this district,
remanding similar cases, should make it clear to similarly situated
defendants, going forward, that comparable actions are not properly
removed, those orders were filed after USAA's removal here.
Accordingly, the Court declines to conclude that USAA's removal was
objectively unreasonable and, therefore, denies the Recovery
Companies' motion for fees and costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/3u95rebbfrom PacerMonitor.com.
WAITR HOLDINGS: Breach of Contract Suit Remanded to W.D. La.
------------------------------------------------------------
Waitr Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in November 13, 2023, that on
June 29, 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed a District Court's
ruling, in part, and then remanded case captioned "Bobby's Country
Cookin' LLC, et al v. Waitr Holdings Inc.," to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
In April 2019, the company was named as a defendant in a class
action complaint filed by certain current and former restaurant
partners, which is currently pending in the District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana.
The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and violation
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and they seek recovery
on behalf of themselves and two separate classes. Based on the
current class definitions, as many as 10,000 restaurant partners
could be members of the two separate classes at issue.
In February 2022, the parties reached a proposed settlement in
principle to resolve the litigation in its entirety and requested a
stay of the pending litigation. Ultimately, no settlement agreement
was executed by the parties nor was District Court approval
obtained. Thereafter, the company sought and was granted leave to
appeal the denial of its motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit.
Waitr Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its
wholly owned subsidiaries operates an online ordering technology
platform, connecting restaurants, merchants and diners in certain
cities in the United States.
WAITR HOLDINGS: Faces False Advertising Suit in Minnesota Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waitr Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in November 13, 2023, that in
November 2022, the company was named as a defendant in "Jenson et
al v. Bitesquad.com, LLC," No. 22-cv-03044 (NEB), filed in
Minnesota state court. The court denied the motion to compel
arbitration on September 13, 2023.
The plaintiffs, three customers purporting to represent a class,
allege that the company's advertising is false and misleading in
that the company's "free delivery" promotions violate the Minnesota
Uniform Deceptive Practices Act and the Minnesota False Statement
in Advertising Act as a result of the company charging "other fees"
on such orders that plaintiffs assert constitute a "delivery
charge."
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief. The company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the Class
Action Fairness Act. Based on the existence of an arbitration
provision in the BiteSquad website "terms and conditions" section,
the company then moved to compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration
on September 13, 2023. A scheduling order has been issued by the
court which calls for initial disclosures to be exchanged by
November 30, 2023, and an in-person settlement conference on
February 20, 2024, and, after a discovery period, a trial-ready
date of July 25, 2025.
Waitr Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its
wholly owned subsidiaries operates an online ordering technology
platform, connecting restaurants, merchants and diners in certain
cities in the United States.
WALMART INC: Defends Class Suit Over Mislabeled Organic Raw Honey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that there are
eight reasons to toss this class action lawsuit, Walmart is arguing
in response to allegations its organic and raw honey is neither.
The company filed a motion to dismiss Dec. 7 in Chicago federal
court, claiming plaintiff John Wertymer and his lawyers have not
shown a reasonable consumer would be misled by the packaging on the
honey.
"He contends the honey is not raw because it is heated too much
during processing, and the organic product is not organic because
Walmart adds foreign sugars," the motion says.
"Neither allegation is supported by the complaint (or true), and
the laboratory reports Wertymer attaches to his complaint flatly
contradict these claims."
Walmart argues its Great Value-brand "Raw Honey" and "Organic Raw
Honey" satisfy the U.S. Department of Agriculture's definition of
"raw honey." It adds the following arguments:
-- Wertymer's own lab found no foreign sugars;
-- A product's status as organic is not impacted by foreign sugars
unless those sugars are prohibited by governing federal
regulations;
-- Wertymer can't allege the honey he bought is worth less than
what he paid for it;
-- He alleges no violation of a public policy or conduct so
oppressive that consumers couldn't avoid it;
-- He can't show Walmart had knowledge any statement was false;
-- He does not face threat of future injury; and
-- He has not alleged an intention to buy the honey again in the
future.
According to Wertymer's allegations, Walmart is misleading
consumers by labeling its Great Value-brand honey products as "raw"
and/or "organic." He claims Walmart adds "foreign sugars" to its
"Organic Raw Honey" and "excessively heats" the honey during
processing, which causes the enzymes in the raw honey to be
destroyed.
Specifically, Wertymer alleges Walmart uses Mannose, a mono
saccharide not found in honey but regularly found in industrial
sugars. He further alleges Walmart had actual knowledge that its
Organic Raw Honey and Raw Honey are not raw or organic and do not
have the benefits of raw honey.
Wertymer is represented by Spencer Sheehan and lawyers from Krislow
& Associates in Chicago and Kent Heitzinger & Associates in
Winnetka. They quickly submitted a motion for class certification
after filing the complaint -- a move that Judge Lindsay Jenkins
ruled was premature. [GN]
WASHINGTON, DC: Court Stays M.J. Class Suit in Interim
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J. et al v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01901 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 14,
2018), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order staying case in
the interim.
The Court said, "It is further ordered that 30 days after the
revised Objections and Responses to Defendants' First Set of
Interrogatories to Plaintiffs M.J. and L.R. are served, Defendants
may file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 10 pages, in the event
such revised Objections and Responses impact Defendants' arguments
in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification."
The suit alleges violation of the America with Disabilities Act.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC]
WELLTOK INC: Meyer Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE MEYER and TAMARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLTOK, INC. and PROGRESS
SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12887-ADB (D.
Mass., Nov. 29, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and
other similarly situated WellTok clients' patients' and/or
employees' sensitive information, including their full names, dates
of birth, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers,
and medical and treatment information, which is protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
On July 26, 2023, WellTok learned that Pension Benefit Information,
LLC's network, to whom PSC provided software services, and for
which WellTok relied on for the sending and receiving of sensitive
information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. The Defendants
failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private
information and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' private information because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class
Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the data
breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
WellTok, Inc. is a healthcare services and support company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
WEST VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Hear Report on Correctional System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Allen Adams, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel,
reports that despite settling one federal class action lawsuit
regarding conditions at a regional jail and an ongoing federal
lawsuit over conditions in West Virginia's entire correctional
system, state officials told lawmakers on Dec. 12 that things are
getting better.
Officials with the Department of Homeland Security and the Division
of Corrections and Rehabilitation gave a report on Dec. 12 to
members of the Legislative Oversight Committee on Regional Jail and
Correctional Facility Authority as lawmakers wrapped up the final
day of December interim meetings at the Capitol.
Mark Sorsaia, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
which oversees DCR, told the committee that despite allegations
raised in the two federal class action lawsuits, conditions in the
state's system of 11 prisons, 10 regional jails, 10 juvenile
centers and three work-release sites were never better.
"We've had some public episodes I guess with corrections . . . in
the last five months, we've had some problems. We had some bad
publicity, some bad lawsuits, some allegations," Sorsaia said. "I
can tell you the problems that we had to deal with from a
structural argument, the jail wasn't fit and was overcrowded and
dirty and people weren't fed and all of that, those problems do
not, I believe, exist today."
The state is settling a federal class action lawsuit over
conditions at the Southern Regional Jail near Beckley after two
inmates filed a lawsuit in 2022 alleging inhuman living conditions
and overcrowding.
The proposed $4 million settlement will be divided between eligible
inmates who were incarcerated there between Sept. 22, 2020, and the
date of the finalized settlement, approximately 9,200 inmates.
Settlement details are still being negotiated and must be approved
by the federal judge in the case.
The settlement came after U.S. Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn's
39-page order finding in favor of a motion from SJR inmates seeking
default judgment against the state. Aboulhosn accused DCR officials
of intentionally destroying evidence, including emails and
electronically stored documents.
The separate ongoing federal lawsuit filed in August against the
entire state correctional system in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia accuses the state of
understaffing, overcrowding and delays of deferred maintenance for
facilities. 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 with available funds or by submitting
appropriations bills between now and the next legislative session
beginning in January 2024.
According to DCR Commissioner William Marshall, the regional jail
system is now only 151 beds over capacity across all 10 facilities.
While some regional jails are now under total capacity, the North
Central Regional Jail in Doddridge County is over capacity by 201
beds. The state's prison system is at appropriate capacity, though
total numbers were not provided in the Dec. 12 meeting.
"We've done a great job. Quite frankly, I'm kind of amazed how we
turned those alleged problems around," Sorsaia said. "I will
concede we did have problems . . . I have a comfort level in what
we're doing. We've still got a road to go in terms of working on
infrastructure, sewage, plumbing, and locks. It's not something you
do overnight, but I think we have a good start."
Justice and the Legislature included $60 million in the surplus
section of the current fiscal year general revenue budget for
deferred maintenance projects at the state's jails and prisons.
Some of those projects are underway, including repair of 113 prison
doors.
Correctional officer vacancies are at 883 positions, down from 951
vacancies reported to lawmakers last month and down from a peak of
1,067 vacancies reported nearly one year ago. Since May, six new
classes of correctional officers have graduated from the state's
correctional academy in Glenville, with 52 cadets of the 77th class
scheduled to graduate on Friday, Dec. 22. The next class starts
after the beginning of the new year.
The number of new correctional officer hires since May including
the incoming correctional officer class stands at 280. More than
225 contacts have been made with people interested in correctional
careers at job fairs and one-stop events, with 126 jobs offered.
Justice signed six corrections bills following a special
legislative session in August, including Senate Bill 1005,
providing $21.1 million to increase the starting pay and change pay
scales for correctional officers; and Senate Bills 1003 and 1004,
providing nearly $6 million for one-time bonuses for support staff
in the correctional system beginning in October.
The state remains under its second state of emergency for
corrections system vacancies, with the West Virginia National Guard
remaining in state facilities to assist with shortages. [GN]
WOODSIDE ENERGY: Greenpeace Files Emissions Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that in a class
action filed in the Federal Court, Greenpeace alleged the fossil
fuel giant engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive when
it made statements about its greenhouse gas emissions.
In one example, Greenhouse alleged Woodside's emissions went up by
3 per cent despite it representing it had cut climate pollution
from extracting and processing its gas and oil by 11 per cent in
2022.
Greenpeace also alleged that despite a plan to be "net zero" by
2050, Woodside did not mention that this did not apply to the 90
per cent of pollution produced when oil and gas get burnt.
General counsel Katrina Bullock said statements made by Woodside
were designed to make investors, governments and the public think
it was reducing emissions, "when in truth, the company's emissions
are increasing".
"It is clearly in the public interest to ensure big polluters such
as Woodside are held to account for their allegedly misleading or
deceptive conduct," Ms Bullock said.
If successful, Greenpeace predicts the case could improve
disclosure transparency and could force other fossil fuel companies
to be upfront about the scope and impact of their business plans.
Greenpeace chief executive David Ritter said Woodside is "treating
the Australian public and its shareholders like mugs".
"Greenpeace won't stand idly by as Australia's biggest climate
threat -- a company that is profiteering from climate devastation
-- buries the truth about its impact in the fine print," Mr Ritter
said. [GN]
[*] Class Suit Filed in Quebec Over Salmonella in Cantaloupes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Slater Vecchio LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
persons in Quebec who purchased, or consumed and got sick,
cantaloupes that are subject to the recent Health Canada recalls.
On November 1, 2023, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in
collaboration with Health Canada, issued a recall for
Malichita-branded cantaloupes due to traces of Salmonella
discovered during testing. Subsequently, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency expanded the recall to include Rudy-branded,
pre-cut cantaloupes and other fruit sold across Canada.
As per the latest Health Canada Report, the cantaloupe outbreak has
resulted in a minimum of 129 reported cases of Salmonella, with
Quebec alone accounting for 91 cases. This outbreak has led to 44
hospitalizations and five tragic deaths.
In a recent CBC Report, it's suggested that the actual number of
affected individuals could be substantially greater, implying an
imminent threat that might affect thousands of people. The
diagnosed cases might only represent a fraction of the true scale
of the issue.
Saro Turner, a partner at Slater Vecchio, stated, "The aim of this
class action is to provide access to justice for those who fell ill
or suffered financial losses due to consuming or purchasing these
hazardous products without value."
If you purchased these cantaloupes or related fruit product that
were recalled but haven't consumed them, do not eat them and keep
proof of purchase, including a receipt or a time-stamped photo, if
available. While healthy individuals may experience short-term
symptoms, young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those
with weakened immune systems face a higher risk of severe and
potentially fatal reactions.
If you suspect that eating a recalled cantaloupe has resulted in
illness, then seek medical attention as appropriate.
Slater Vecchio LLP is seeking to identify with individuals who
purchased a recalled cantaloupe or related fruit product sold
between October 10, 2023, and November 24, 2023. Please submit your
information on our website at
https://www.slatervecchio.com/class-action/cantaloupes-salmonella-recall/
[GN]
[*] Data Breach Class Actions Up in 2023, Study Shows
-----------------------------------------------------
Epiq reports that there has been a spike in data breach class
actions this year. According to a study by Law.com Radar, the
monthly average of data breach class actions was 44.5 from January
through August. This figure is more than double of last year's 20.6
monthly average. Data breaches have also been on an uptick.
According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, there was an
increase of 114 percent in reported data compromises from 2023 Q1
to Q2 reflecting the highest number of breaches ever during a
quarter. These incidents are getting more costly each year. IBM
reported in the 2023 Cost of a Data Breach report that the global
average breach cost was $4.45 million, representing a 15 percent
increase over three years.
But what do all these statistics mean and how should business
leaders react? First, it is time to come to terms with the reality
that any organization is fair game for an attack. They must pay
attention to the data breach class action landscape. Next, instead
of viewing these trends in isolation, it is time to unite them and
look at the whole picture. Where significant data breaches occur,
class action exposure increases exponentially. Lastly,
organizations need to formulate a breach response plan that is
proactive, accounts for risk mitigation, and factors in potential
class action liability.
Current Conditions
There are several factors contributing to the rise in data
breaches. The obvious reason is that as the world continues to
digitize more, there is more information out there to access. Bad
actors are developing more sophisticated and strategic ways to
target sensitive information, while organizations are
simultaneously producing and storing a record amount of data. They
are also figuring out how to use advanced technologies as a tool to
intercept information.
For example, ransomware attacks have been trending in recent years
with demands previously in the thousands now in the millions. Even
if an organization saves money by paying the ransom, this is
contributing to the bigger problem. Bad actors will keep
perpetuating these attacks because they have gotten away with it in
the past, while continuing to sophisticate their efforts. Other
trending attack methods include phishing, multifactor
authentication breaches, and malware.
Large-scale hacks have also contributed to the drastic uptick in
breaches. The MOVEit hack resulting from a software vulnerability
that began in May 2023 (and is still ongoing) is one of several
recent events illustrating how widespread attacks can quickly place
a large number of organizations at risk. Many MOVEit incidents
involve over one million impacted contacts and the types of data
impacted tend to be rich files with complete contact data, such as
complete client or employee lists containing full PII sets. Events
like this have the potential to create large class action lawsuits
against the software creator and its customers. Affected
individuals have already started filing lawsuits against
organizations using MOVEit, thus highlighting the importance of not
only having sound internal practices but also keeping apprised of
third-party systems storing any business data.
The above coupled with more court education, regulatory rules,
cyber insurance mandates, and media reporting on data breaches
highlights how front and center this topic is currently. This has
directly caused more class action activity that is costlier.
Settlements are higher due to the number of affected consumers and
public attention on breaches of all sizes. More class actions are
being filed and courts are allowing certification. The Law.com
Radar study found that from this January through June there were
246 data breach class actions, which is close to 2022's grand
total. Courts are even requiring defendants to turn over privileged
investigative breach reports.
These circumstances place urgency on breached organizations to
mitigate quickly and explain security gaps to save their
reputation. To lessen risk, it is crucial to not only anticipate
data breaches – but also the class actions that can follow.
Adapting and Acting
It is time to act. Having controls in place to mitigate breach risk
is no longer an option. Organizations must review their security
gaps regularly and make this an ongoing top initiative. Not putting
enough prevention in place to avoid a breach or failing to quickly
determine a breach cause and remediate it effectively are both
contributing factors to the uptick in class actions. However, more
are looking to invest in cyber preparedness as demonstrated in the
IBM report where 51 percent of organizations said they plan to
increase cybersecurity spending because of an internal breach.
But where to start? Keeping on top of the changing landscape will
help improve policies and procedures related to managing threats
and risks, but this is only the beginning of what needs to be done
to have a robust and effective cyber readiness plan that also
anticipates class action activity. What needs to be done will be
unique to every organization. The goal should be to determine the
best combination of security controls that fall within an
organization's risk tolerance. From training to threat detection
software, mock breach exercises, and beyond -- the possibilities
are plentiful and flexible.
This is not a feat to tackle alone, so fear not. An outside
consultant with not only cybersecurity capabilities, but also class
action, is ideal. Look for an expert partner that can pinpoint
cyber gaps and fix them by integrating new tools or information
governance approaches; advise on what to include in an
organization's incident prevention and response programs; keep
apprised on breach and class action trends; provide breach response
services; and have staff available to handle class action
administration in the event that one materializes after a breach.
By tapping into outside resources in addition to internal efforts,
an organization will be in the best position to tackle data
breaches that come their way -- and any class actions that may
follow. This will also reduce breach and class action risk in the
first place, providing peace of mind and allowing organizations to
maintain good cyber hygiene. [GN]
[*] Firefighter Seeks Review of Ohio Class Vacatur in PFAS Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a former firefighter has asked the full
6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to review a panel's vacatur of an
order certifying a class of Ohio residents who allege injuries
caused by various companies' PFAS-containing products.
In a Dec. 11 brief, Kevin Hardwick argues that the appellate panel
contradicted "well-established precedent that initial pleadings
need not identify every defendant with certainty to establish
traceability, and may treat them as a collective under Article
III."
Hardwick adds that, at minimum, the appellate court should allow
the trial court to consider whether he may amend his complaint.
[GN]
[*] Village of Belgium Opts Out of PFAs Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ozaukee Press reports that it's not a "Seinfeld" episode, but this
class-action lawsuit settlement as it pertains to the Village of
Belgium is a case about nothing.
The Village Board on Dec. 11 unanimously agreed not to opt out of a
per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS, known as forever
chemicals) settlement but agreed not to fill out any of the
necessary paperwork to get a piece of the settlement since the
village's water doesn't have any of those chemicals. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,060 PI Lawsuits as of Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc., from time to time, is involved in lawsuits that are
brought against them in the normal course of business, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Since 2002 and as of October 31, 2023,
approximately 1,060 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have
been filed, and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 1,009
have been dismissed without any payment by us, 37 are pending and
only 14 have been settled, which settlements have not materially
impacted our financial condition or operating results.
"The building materials industry has been subject to personal
injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to
raw materials contained in building products, as well as claims for
incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a
distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of
exposure to product liability claims if the use of the products we
have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is
alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or
property damage or to have violated environmental, health or safety
or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may
in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing,
defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the
product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties.
Certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related
to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they
distributed prior to 1979."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
http://surl.li/okzdd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Pushing to Settle Asbestos Related Talc Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson is trying to resolve some of the thousands of lawsuits
filed claiming its talc-based baby powder causes cancer. J&J's
in-house lawyer overseeing the talc litigation Eric Haas, said
during an investor call that the recent settlements covered cases
involving plaintiffs with mesothelioma.
In hopes of eventually reaching a global settlement, the company
announced that three law firms settled around 100 cases in the
first week of December 2023. Haas didn't reveal any further details
about the dollar amounts of the settlements, the identity of the
law firms involved, or exactly how many people the deal affects.
"We have made recent progress over the last few weeks" Haas told
investors when speaking about resolving groups of legal cases from
plaintiffs alleging they developed mesothelioma from
asbestos-contaminated baby powder. He also said the company has
resolved all but one of the cases scheduled for trial in 2023.
"Our intention with talc is to bring resolution to these cases,"
J&J Chief Executive Officer Joaquin Duato told investors. Duato
noted settling the cases would allow the company to "spend our
days" on treatment advancement.
Johnson & Johnson is facing more than 50,000 talc lawsuits in
connection to claims that its baby powder is tainted with asbestos
and can cause cancer. Most of the plaintiffs are women with ovarian
cancer. J&J argues its products aren't asbestos-contaminated and
are safe.
The company is considering a third attempt at filing for bankruptcy
after courts rejected the move twice. J&J tried two Chapter 11
filings through its subsidiary LTL Management. A judge dismissed
both attempts, saying the company didn't qualify for bankruptcy
protection since it was not in financial distress.
For its third attempt J&J may attempt to move its legal liabilities
to Texas. According to the Wall Street Journal, the move would need
to involve one of Johnson & Johnson's existing businesses already
in Texas in order to establish a venue. The strategy is known as
the "Texas Two-Step."
*********
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 ***