/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240213.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 13, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 32
Headlines
1818 FARMS LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Wahap Suit Says
1AND8 INC: Cammayo Sues Over Deceptive Ticket Price Scheme
3M COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Fletcher Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Long Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Perry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
40S AND SHORTIES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADIDAS AMERICA: Bifurcated Discovery Bid Tossed in Hernandez Suit
ADVISORS IGNITE: Van Elzen Loses Bid for Class Certification
ALLEN RASHIDZADA: Parties Must Start Class Discovery
ALLSTATE CORP: Wins TCPA Class Action Suit
ANDERSON HOSPITAL: Seeks Court Jurisdiction Over Privacy Class Suit
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH: Dell Must Object to R&R by Feb. 16
APPLE INC: Bakay Sues Over Smartphone OS Monopoly
APPLE INC: Judge Certifies App Store Class Action
ARCADIA PUBLISHING: Everingham Files Suit in D. South Carolina
ARCHER DANIELS: AOT Must File Partial Summary Judgment Bid
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO: Chow Sues Over Drop in Share Price
ARIZONA LABOR FORCE: Bozek Files Suit in D. Arizona
ATLASSIAN CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Deadline Continued to Feb. 14
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 25
BAYER CORP: Tisdale Sues Over Deceptive Decongestants' Labels
BETTENDORF, IA: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Facilitating Terrorism Financing
BLOOMINGTON & NORMAL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Brewer
BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS: Bid to Stay Stafford Class Suit OK'd
BOULDER BJ: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
BRITISH AMERICAN: David Sues Over Drop in Share Price
CHANG LI SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardoso Alleges
DISCOVER NY PROJECT: Perlmutter Sues Over Unlawful Booking Fees
DUNKIN DONUTS: Discriminates Lactose Intolerant Customers
[Redacted Feb. 14, 2024]
FLINT, MI: Settles Class Suit Over Water Crisis for $25M
FOUND OYSTER: Faces Class Suit Over Withholding Gratuities
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Certifies ChapStick Label Class Suit
KELLER WILLIAMS: Settles Class Suit Over Home Sales Prices for $70M
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Judge Denies 401(k) Suit Class Certification
LATTER-DAY SAINTS: Judson Sues Over Improper Use of Tithe Funds
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alexander Says
LOANDEPOT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Penird Alleges
MAPLEBEAR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 25
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Flores Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Hanson Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Kimmel Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Mulvey Suit Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Nabong v. Mattel Set for Feb. 23
MLM CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Alleges
MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 16
MON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
MONCTON HOSPITAL: Court Grants Leave to Appeal Induced Labor Suit
NAVY FEDERAL: Settles Class Suit Over ISA Fee for $5.5M
NISWI LLC: Faces Suit Over Excessive Payday Loan Interest Rates
OAK VIEW: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Andersen Suit Alleges
PACIFIC MARKET: Reusable Cups Contain Lead, Class Suit Says
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Courtmanche Sues Over Oil Price Monopoly
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
POPULAR BANK: Second Circuit Court Rules Over Account Update
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Waden Sues Over Data Breach's Late Notice
RECKITT BENCKISER: Scharon Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Shah Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info
STATEBRIDGE CO: Faces Class Suit Over Delinquent Second Mortgages
STEEL HUGGERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conejo Suit Says
STERILIZATION SERVICES: Amends Suit Over Ethylene Oxide Emission
STUBHUB INC: Alcaraz Sues Over Ticket Bait and Switch Scheme
THE MESSENGER: Faces Class Suit Over Workers' Abrupt Termination
TROPIC OIL: Property Not Accessible to Disabled, Suit Says
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Court Dismisses Tuition Payments' Class Suit
US FERTILITY: Settles Patient Info Data Breach Suit for $5.75M
WINTER DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Correa Alleges
WW INTERNATIONAL: Brookshier Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
[*] Real Estate Brokerages in Canada Sued Over Inflated Commissions
*********
1818 FARMS LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Wahap Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WAHAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 1818 FARMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00580 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.1818farms.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
1818 FARMS, LLC is a seller of gift cards, bath, and beauty
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
1AND8 INC: Cammayo Sues Over Deceptive Ticket Price Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE CAMMAYO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1AND8, INC. D/B/A MUSEUM OF ICE
CREAM, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00501 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2024)
alleges violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, whenever a consumer
selects an admission ticket on the website
https://museumoficecream.com, they are quoted a fee-less price,
only to be ambushed by a $9.50 "service fee" -- which is masked
under the ambiguous category "Taxes & Fees" -- at checkout after
clicking through the various screens required to make a purchase.
Because these fees are only flashed after a museum-goer selects her
ticket, and if and only if a museum-goer clicks the question mark
icon next to "Taxes & Fees," Defendant is able to swindle
substantial sums of money from its customers.
1AND8, INC. D/B/A MUSEUM OF ICE CREAM is an art installation and
experiential museum that operates in several cities across the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
1330 Avenue of the Americas 32nd Floor
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
3M COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Evans, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06741-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Fletcher Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fletcher, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06739-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Long Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------
David G. Long, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06738-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
esophageal cancer and thyroid disease as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Perry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milo Perry, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06742-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Smith, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06740-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
40S AND SHORTIES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 40s And Shorties LLC.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. 40s And Shorties LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00670 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
40s And Shorties -- https://40sandshorties.com/ -- sell Skateboards
and accessories, as well as vinyl records.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ADIDAS AMERICA: Bifurcated Discovery Bid Tossed in Hernandez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez v. Adidas
America, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02671 (E.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 15,
2023), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order that
bifurcated discovery in the putative wage and hour class action is
not appropriate at this time.
-- The Court's finding regarding the bifurcation of discovery is
made
without prejudice to Plaintiff or Defendant seeking appropriate
relief by way of a properly noticed motion.
-- While the Court notes that the parties do feel setting
discovery
cutoff dates are appropriate at this time, the Court will set
discovery cut-off dates in its Scheduling Order.
-- Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to propose a
discovery
plan as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3).
-- The parties shall file with the Court, within fourteen (14)
days, a further Joint Status Report that contains proposed dates
for the following: fact discovery cut-off date, expert discovery
cut-off date, date by which a motion for class certification will
be filed, and a final dispositive motion filing date.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.[CC]
Adidas designs and markets apparel products.
ADVISORS IGNITE: Van Elzen Loses Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID VAN ELZEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ADVISORS IGNITE USA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-WCG (E.D. Wis.),
the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order denying motion
for class certification.
The Court said, "Van Elzen has not met his burden to show that
class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and the motion for class certification is denied.
Advisors Ignite has offered no such evidence here. Its argument
that Van Elzen fails as an adequate class representative therefore
fails.
This putative class action alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and seeks monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief for Plaintiff David Van Elzen on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated against
Defendant Advisors Ignite and its owner and CEO Steven DeJohn.
Advisors Ignite is a marketing company located in Downers Grove,
Illinois, that works with independent insurance agents and
financial advisors who, in turn, work with independent marketing
organizations to sell annuities to major insurance carriers in the
United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQtxPb at no extra
charge.[CC]
???
ALLEN RASHIDZADA: Parties Must Start Class Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAJIBULLAH JALILI, v.
ALLEN RASHIDZADA, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00414-DSF-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an standing order as
follows:
-- Presence of Lead Counsel
Lead trial counsel must attend any proceeding set by this
Court,
including all scheduling, pretrial, and settlement conferences.
Only ONE attorney for a party may be designated as lead trial
counsel unless otherwise permitted by the Court.
-- Discovery
All discovery matters are referred to the assigned magistrate
judge. All discovery documents must include the words
"Discovery
Matter" in the caption to ensure proper routing.
-- Proposed Orders
Proposed orders should not contain attorney names, addresses,
etc.
on the caption page, should not contain a footer with the
document
name or other information, and should not contain a watermark
or
designation of the firm name, etc. in the margin.
-- Mandatory Paper Chambers Copies
Documents will not be considered until paper Chambers copies
are
submitted, so paper Chambers copies of all documents for which
priority processing is requested should be submitted on the
same
day as the filing.
-- Motions for Summary Judgment
Please refer to Judge Fischer's Standing Order re Motions for
Summary Judgment at www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
-- Class Actions
If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to
act
diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion
for
class certification can be filed expeditiously.
-- ERISA Cases Concerning Benefit Claims
The Court will hear motions to determine the standard of
review,
whether discovery will be permitted, and the scope of the
administrative record.
A copy of the Court's standing order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mcIEz0
at no extra charge.[CC]
???
ALLSTATE CORP: Wins TCPA Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of TCPA World reports that Allstate has been in a
heap of TCPA trouble of late, but it did defeat a class action bid
a while back.
Hoping to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, the Plaintiff in
Hossfield v. Allstate, 2024 WL 325337 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2024)
figured they would try it again and moved to certify the case a
second time.
It did not go well.
Allstate wisely moved to strike the motion and the Court stayed
briefing on the certification effort pending the outcome of the
motion to strike???a pretty bad sign for the Plaintiff.
The Court ultimately granted Allstate's motion holding Plaintiff
failed to demonstrate any new facts or material change in
circumstances or law that merited reconsideration.
While I am happy for Allstate here, I kind of see Plaintiff's
point.
In the original motion they had identified a vendor that was
calling numbers on Allstate's internal DNC list. They suggested to
the Court???but provided no evidence???that other vendors were
doing the same thing. They asked the Court to certify a class of
everyone who received calls from such vendors???but the Court
refused since the showing was too speculative.
In their second motion it appears the Plaintiff cleaned up a lot of
the uncertainty. But the Court refused to credit the showing
finding that the evidence should have been presented the first time
around.
Eesh.
Really important lesson here for folks. Whether a Plaintiff or a
Defendant facing a certification effort???EVIDENCE matters. And
even a small oversight (or in this case a seemingly large one) can
destroy a certification effort or defense.
Remember certification is DISCRETIONARY with the Court???meaning
that the Court can grant or deny on a huge number of bases. But
Courts LOVE it when one of the parties give it an easy way out and
they can point to a simple failure of proof.
Don't let it happen to you! [GN]
ANDERSON HOSPITAL: Seeks Court Jurisdiction Over Privacy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris of Madison - St. Clair Record reports that Chief U.S.
District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel must decide whether a class
action claim that Anderson Hospital shared private information with
Facebook belongs in her court or in Madison County.
Plaintiff Erin Hischier of Edwardsville filed the complaint,
Anderson removed it to district court, and Hischier moved to remand
it.
Attorney David Cates of Swansea represents Hischier in association
with Lynn Toops of Indianapolis and Gerard Stranch of Nashville.
The complaint alleged that Anderson encouraged Hischier to access
online platforms, and the plaintiff reasonably expected her
communications would not be transmitted to a third party.
They claimed Anderson used Meta Pixel and tracking technology to
send Hischier's private Information to Facebook, Google, and
others.
Anderson allegedly assisted Facebook, Google, and others with
intercepting Hischier's confidential communications.
Cates, Toops and Stranch claimed Hischier and class members thought
they communicated exclusively with their trusted provider.
They claimed Anderson surreptitiously forced Hischier and class
members to transmit intimate details about their treatment to third
parties.
They added that a pixel tracks pages viewed, buttons clicked, and
information submitted, and transmits the information to a website
server and third parties.
They claimed Meta Pixel can link website interactions with Facebook
ID, allowing information to then be linked with a Facebook
profile.
The attorneys claimed Anderson effectively planted a bug on web
browsers.
The suit states that Facebook builds data profiles to target
advertisements and sells them for profit.
They claimed third party marketers then target class members.
Third parties could allegedly infer from the data that a specific
patient was being treated for a specific condition.
The suit states that Facebook generated $117 billion in revenue in
2021.
Anderson counsel Amy Lenz of Chicago removed the complaint to
district court on grounds that the hospital acted as an officer of
the federal government.
Lenz claimed the government has directed a public and private
initiative to develop a national structure for health information
since 2004.
She added that the government directed providers in Medicare and
Medicaid to offer patients online access to their records and
optimize their engagement with their information.
"Defendant has faithfully assisted and followed the federal
government's direction in connection with the actions challenged by
Plaintiff here," she wrote.
Hischier's counsel Toops moved to remand the complaint to Madison
County, claiming Anderson made no showing that Anderson helps to
carry out duties of a federal superior.
Toops claimed the government didn't hire or enlist Anderson to
perform a particular function, and Anderson didn't act pursuant to
any federal program.
"Defendant is simply not a federal officer. It is a private actor,"
she wrote.
"To say otherwise would turn practically every regulated entity
into a federal officer," she added.
Lenz responded that Anderson implemented tracking technologies in
conformance with a model for providers to follow using marketers
like Facebook to increase engagements.
"Anderson was at minimum assisting the federal government," she
wrote.
Lenz claimed the government monitors compliance through reports
Anderson submits.
"Through these reports, the federal government monitored Anderson's
activities in increasing the use of the patient portal," she
wrote.
She claimed the argument that the government didn't direct Anderson
to make health records accessible ignored that a national
coordinator is responsible for leading this effort
"Some communication is made to a third party every time a visitor
visits any website, merely for the Internet to function," she
wrote. [GN]
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH: Dell Must Object to R&R by Feb. 16
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Dell, v. Annette
Chambers-Smith, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03167-JLG-KLL (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge James L. Graham entered an order granting Dell's
motion for an extension of time to file any objections to the
Report and Recommendations no later than Feb. 16, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bWLIok at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Bakay Sues Over Smartphone OS Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------
LUISA BAKAY; ELISA JONES; and LETICIA SHAW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00476 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2024)
alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Apple and Google have
entered into a conspiracy to monopolize the smartphone operating
systems (the "Smartphone OS Market" or "SOS Market"). Each company
possesses approximately half of the SOS Market, and together they
form a near 100 percent monopoly of the SOS Market.
Apple and Google have entered into an express agreement that has
the intended purpose and effect of obtaining a near 100 percent
monopoly of the SOS Market and to strengthen the Mobile Ecosystem
Barrier to Entry ("MEBE") protecting that monopoly. Specifically,
Apple and Google have expressly agreed not to deploy any other web
engine but WebKit on the iOS operating system. Pursuant to this
agreement, Google has released major versions of its Google Chrome
browser without the central part of the product???the web
engine???instead using its horizontal competitor's web engine for
its product. Put simply, Google has repeatedly and overtly acted
pursuant to the express agreement with Apple and has built its web
browser with WebKit, says the suit.
APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (332) 322-8835
Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
901 South MoPac Expressway
Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (213) 462-2772
Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
APPLE INC: Judge Certifies App Store Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
said tens of millions of Apple customers can pursue a class action
accusing the company of monopolizing the market for iPhone apps by
banning purchases outside its App Store, leading to higher prices.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had in March 2022
refused to certify a class action, but changed her mind after the
class was narrowed to include only Apple account holders who spent
$10 or more on app or in-app content.
While remaining "concerned" that the narrowed class might include
more than 10 million accounts that suffered no harm, or 7.9% of the
total, Rogers said that number could be reduced and there was no
fixed "cutoff" for denying certification.
The Oakland, California-based judge also rejected Apple's bid to
exclude testimony it considered unreliable from two expert
witnesses, including Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel McFadden,
about how it may have harmed consumers.
Apple, based in Cupertino, California, did not immediately respond
to requests for comment.
Mark Rifkin, a lawyer for the consumers, said he was "extremely
pleased" and looked forward to the next phase of the 12-year-old
antitrust case. He estimated that the class incurred "billions of
dollars in damages."
Class actions can result in greater recoveries at less cost than if
plaintiffs are forced to sue individually.
Rogers has also overseen "Fortnite" videogame creator Epic Games'
antitrust case against Apple.
In Sept. 2021 she ordered Apple to loosen restrictions on where
developers can seek payment from customers for their apps, but
stopped short of requiring Apple to allow downloads to iPhones
outside its App Store.
A federal appeals court upheld much of that ruling in April 2023,
and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to get involved in January.
The case is In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-06714. [GN]
ARCADIA PUBLISHING: Everingham Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Publishing,
Inc. The case is styled as Kate Everingham, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Publishing, Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-00487-DCN (D.S.C., Jan. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Personal Injury.
Arcadia Publishing -- https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/ -- is an
American publisher of neighborhood, local, and regional history of
the United States in pictorial form.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq.
OHANESIAN AND OHANESIAN
PO Box 2433
Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
Phone: (843) 626-7193
Email: ohanesianlawfirm@cs.com
ARCHER DANIELS: AOT Must File Partial Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AOT Holding AG v. Archer
Daniels Midland Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-02240 (C.D. Ill., Filed
Sept 4, 2019), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order
that the Plaintiff may file its partial summary judgment motion
following the court's ruling on the pending renewed motion to
certify class and renewed motion to exclude expert testimony of
Shawn Ledgerwood, when the court sets a briefing schedule for
renewed summary judgment and Daubert motions.
The nature of suit states fraud -- commodities leverage contracts.
Archer Daniels is an American multinational food processing and
commodities trading corporation. [CC]
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO: Chow Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND CHOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY; JUAN
LUCIANO; VIKRAM LUTHAR; and RAY YOUNG, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00634 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 24, 2024) is a securities fraud
class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all those who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, ADM common stock during the
period from April 30, 2020 through January 22, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the "Class"), asserting
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material facts, about the performance
and prospects of ADM's Nutrition segment and its accounting
practices. Specifically, the Defendants made positive statements
about the Nutrition segment as a future profit-driver for the
Company, with the ability to capitalize on healthier eating trends
and rising consumer demand for natural ingredients and flavoring.
The Defendants also created the impression that the Nutrition
segment's growth would provide more diversification and earnings
stability for ADM. This was an appealing strategy because the
Company's results were historically tied to the highly cyclical
commodities market.
The price of ADM common stock declined by $16.23 per share, or
approximately 24 percent, from $68.19 per share to close at $51.69
on January 22, 2024, wiping out approximately $8.8 billion of ADM's
market value. This is the Company's largest one-day decline since
November 13, 1929, which was two weeks after the market crash of
1929.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant
losses and damages, says the suit.
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY procures, transports, stores, and
merchandises agricultural commodities and products. The Company
processes oilseeds, corn, milo, oats, barley, peanuts, and wheat.
Archer-Daniels-Midland also processes produce products which have
primarily two end uses including food or feed ingredients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL LLP
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 629-3737
Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
Sarah E. Delaney, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Email: jeff@blockleviton.com
jake@blockleviton.com
sarah@blockleviton.com
ARIZONA LABOR FORCE: Bozek Files Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona Labor Force
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Daniel Bozek, Brandon
Gaines, an individual - on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Arizona Labor Force Incorporated, Labor
Systems Incorporated, Unknown Parties named as: Does 1-10, Case No.
2:24-cv-00210-SMB (D. Ariz., Jan. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Arizona Labor Force is a full-service staffing agency for growing
businesses like yours.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW APC
4660 La Jolla Village Dr., Ste. 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: (619) 353-7966
- and -
Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S, Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (866) 219-3343
Fax: (866) 219-3343
Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
Kristopher Craig Childers, Esq.
PATENAUDE & FELIX APC
3260 N Hayden Rd., Ste. 209
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Phone: (800) 832-7675
Email: kris@compassionate-counsel.com
ATLASSIAN CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JDSupra reports that on January 22,
2024, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class
action complaint alleging that a software company (the "Company")
and certain of its executives violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. City of Hollywood Firefighters
Pension Fund v. Atlassian Corp., 3:23-cv-00519-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan.
22, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and
misleading statements about the strength of its financial outlook.
The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, holding that
plaintiffs failed to allege falsity with respect to most of the
alleged misrepresentations or sufficient facts giving rise to a
strong inference of scienter with respect to one omission that was
alleged plausibly.
The Company sells various software products. Its growth strategy
focuses on upgrading users from free to paid versions through "Free
to Paid Conversions" (where customers that use the free version
upgrade to a paid version) and "Paid User Expansion" (where
customers that use a paid version increase the number of paid
users). The Free to Paid Conversions account for approximately 10%
of the revenues, while the Paid User Expansion accounts for
approximately 90%. In November 2022, the Company announced slowed
growth of both Free to Paid Conversions and Paid User Expansion.
The Company stated that it "saw a more pronounced continuation of
the trend discussed last quarter, where fewer Free instances
converted to paid plans."
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company knew of the slowdown in its
Paid User Expansion by mid-July 2022 but falsely denied or omitted
the existence of that trend in several statements made in August
and September 2020. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged four
categories of misstatements and omissions: (1) statements in an
early August earnings call that there was a small decrease in its
Free to Paid Conversions; (2) a statement in its annual report (the
"Annual Report") filed with the Securities Exchange Commission
("SEC"), which noted that the Company was "not aware of any trends,
including in the macroeconomic environment, that affected its
business"; (3) the Company's former Chief Operating Officer's
statements at a conference in September 2020 that the Company was
experiencing a "bit of softness" in its Free to Paid Conversions
but emphasized that the impact was small; and (4) statements in the
amendment to the Company's Form S-8 Registration Statement filed
with the SEC in October, 2020 that incorporated the statements in
its August annual report.
The Court first held that plaintiffs failed to allege that the
statements from the early August earnings call were false. The
statements about the slowdown related to Free to Paid Conversions,
not Paid User Expansion, and they were not misleading when read in
context with the questions that were being answered. The Court
found that various Company statements referenced in the pleadings,
as well as statements in other press releases and SEC filings of
which it took judicial notice, showed that the slowdown in Paid
User Expansion began in mid-August at the earliest. Accordingly,
plaintiffs failed to plead that the statements contradicted
anything that defendants knew at the time of the earnings call
(August 4).
The Court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the statement that
the Company was "not aware of any trends . . . that are reasonably
likely to have a material effect on our revenues, income,
profitability" was misleading because it did not disclose the
slowdown in the growth of Paid User Expansion. The Court held that
"context is key" and that the statement related to future risks
posed by changing macro-economic environment that were uncertain
and unpredictable. Even if the referenced "trend" related to the
Paid User Expansion slowdown, the Court again noted that the
earliest date on which the slowdown could have begun was mid-August
and that plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead that it was a
???trend??? at that time. The Court also rejected claims based on
the amendment to the S-8 Registration Statement, which incorporated
by reference the Company's Annual Report, for the same reasons.
The Court next considered statements made by the COO at a
conference in September 2022, which plaintiffs alleged were
misleading because they "did not fully convey the slowdown to Free
to Paid Conversions" and "provided no commentary on the Paid User
Expansion slowdown that began in mid-August." The Court found that
the statements adequately conveyed the Free to Paid Conversions
slowdown. However, the Court also found that the lack of commentary
on the Paid User Expansion slowdown was plausibly misleading
because defendants allegedly did not tell the market of a slowdown
in the majority of its business while making encouraging statements
about the "softness" in small parts of its business. According to
the Court, "because the defendants specifically and repeatedly told
investors over the years that they closely monitored metrics
throughout the year and they told investors that they were closely
monitoring those metrics, it was misleading to not communicate
relevant information about this specific metric a month after the
change began, even if it was not yet a full-blown 'trend.'"
However, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege
scienter with respect to the COO's statements at the September
conference. The Court found that plaintiffs failed to show how the
COO was deliberately reckless in making the statements at the
conference and that there were no allegations that the COO
personally benefitted from the misrepresentations. Instead, the
Court found that there was a "plausible, nonculpable" explanation
for the Company's conduct: by holding the COO's call mid-quarter,
the Company tried to "provide open and regular communication to
their shareholders during uncertain economic times." Because
plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter, the Court dismissed
the complaint. [GN]
AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Deadline Continued to Feb. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IA BROWN. an individual,
on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, v. AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; CRAIG CAMERON, an individual; HEARX WEST, INC.,
A California corporation; STEVE MAHON, an individual; TINO
SCHWEIGHOEFER, an individual; HEARX WEST LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; WS AUDIOLOGY (CALIFORNIA), PC, A California
professional corporation; SIVANTOS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04271-DMG-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order continuing
dates for class certification motion and associated dates:
1. The deadline for the Plaintiff's motion May 14,
2024
for class certification be continued
from Feb. 14, 2024 to:
2. The Trial in this matter is continued Jan. 7,
2025
from Oct. 8, 2024 to:
Audiology was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=60BEfj at no extra
charge.[CC]
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges B. Riley Financial, Inc. (NASDAQ: RILY)
investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses
now.
Class Period: May 10, 2023 - Nov. 9, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 25, 2024
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/RILY
Contact An Attorney Now: RILY@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
B. Riley Financial, Inc. (NASDAQ: RILY) Securities Fraud Class
Action:
The litigation focuses on B. Riley's assistance to its client,
Brian Kahn, the then-CEO of Franchise Group, Inc. ("FRG"), in the
$2.8 billion management-led buyout of FRG. The deal closed on Aug.
21, 2023 and B. Riley reportedly invested $216.5 million in an
equity financing to facilitate it.
The complaint alleges B. Riley misrepresented and failed to
disclose to investors:
(1) that Brian Kahn had been credibly implicated in a
conspiracy to defraud investors of millions of dollars;
(2) that, despite this involvement, B. Riley continued to
finance the transaction enabling Kahn and others to take FRG
private through complex arrangements; and
(3) the foregoing was reasonably likely to draw regulatory
scrutiny to Investors began to learn the truth on Nov. 2, 2023,
when Bloomberg reported that Kahn had been identified as
"Co-conspirator-2" in a conspiracy to defraud investors of $294
million that the DOJ was prosecuting.
Then, on Nov. 9, 2023, B. Riley revealed significant details about
the FRG transaction and the years-long series of complex financial
transactions among B. Riley, Kahn, and their company's respective
subsidiaries culminating in the Aug. 21, 2023 FRG transaction.
These events sent the price of B. Riley shares sharply lower.
More recently, on Jan. 20, 2024, FRG abruptly replaced Kahn as its
CEO.
Finally, on Jan. 21, 2024, Reuters reported that "U.S. authorities
are investigating B. Riley's deals with a client who was linked to
a securities fraud, and the use of his assets to help the
investment bank obtain a loan from Nomura Holdings[.]" The report
also said, "[t]he SEC has carried out interviews in recent months
about B. Riley and its relationship with Brian Kahn[,]" and "SEC
officials have been scrutinizing how Kahn led a buyout of Vitamin
Shoppe owner Franchise Group last year in a deal arranged by B.
Riley[.]" Reuters added that "Nomura partly financed the
transaction, with some of Kahn's assets pledged as collateral."
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding B.
Riley should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email RILY@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates
and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
BAYER CORP: Tisdale Sues Over Deceptive Decongestants' Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Achorea Tisdale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bayer Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00284 (D.N.J., January 17, 2024) seeks to remedy Bayer's
deceptive marketing and labeling of Alka-Seltzer Plus medicines as
being effective decongestants and asserts claims for breach of
express warranties, fraud by affirmative misrepresentation, fraud
by negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
for violations of the state consumer laws.
According to the complaint, Bayer represented that phenylephrine
hydrochloride (PE) is the sole active ingredient as a decongestant
in Alka-Seltzer Plus. However, on September 12, 2023, the United
States Food and Drug Administration publicly declared that orally
ingested PE is completely ineffective as a nasal decongestant.
Accordingly, Bayer has willfully ignored decades of scientific,
industry, and regulatory knowledge that PE is wholly ineffective as
a nasal decongestant and has insisted on this course of deceptive
misrepresentation, says the suit.
Headquartered in Whippany, NJ, Bayer Corporation manufactures,
markets, and distributes Alka-Seltzer and Alka-Seltzer Plus. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Alex Lee, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
alee@caffertyclobes.com
BETTENDORF, IA: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORRY SHIPLEY & MARK
SCHULTZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-RGE-WPK (S.D.
Iowa), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint
motion to extend class certification deadlines as follows:
Bettendorf is located on the eastern border of Iowa where the
Mississippi River meets Interstate 80.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eDnLyW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelsey A.W. Marquard, Esq.
Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq.
O'BRIEN & MARQUARD, P.L.C.
2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 140S
Davenport, IA 52807
E-mail: kawm@emprights.com
dao@emprights.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason M. Craig, Esq.
AHLERS & COONEY, P.C.
100 Court Avenue, Suite 600
Des Moines, IA 50309-2231
Telephone: (515) 243-7611
Facsimile: (515) 243-2149
E-mail: jcraig@ahlerslaw.com
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Facilitating Terrorism Financing
------------------------------------------------------------
Assad Jafri of CryptoSlate reports that the lawsuit accuses Binance
of enabling the terrorist organization to bypass sanctions and
anti-money laundering laws, thus providing material support to
terrorism. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages in an effort to hold the exchange accountable.
The lawsuit filed against Binance by families of Hamas victims
alleges that from 2017 to 2023, Binance processed transactions that
effectively allowed Hamas to evade international sanctions and
anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, thereby supporting the
organization's terrorist activities.
Details from the lawsuit reveal that the plaintiffs include both
individuals who have suffered directly from Hamas' actions, such as
hostages and relatives of deceased victims, and those who argue
that Binance's failure to prevent its platform from being used for
terror financing has had devastating effects.
The lawsuit specifically targets Binance's operations that
purportedly allowed Hamas to conduct transactions via its platform,
bypassing traditional banking systems and sanctions. It also names
the former CEO of Binance, Changpeng Zhao, along with the
governments of Iran and Syria, as defendants.
It is filed under the United States Anti-Terrorism Act, alleging
that the defendants provided "substantial assistance" to
terrorists.
Stricter oversight needed
This legal action is part of a broader scrutiny of cryptocurrency
exchanges and their obligations under international financial
regulations.
The case has attracted attention from various sectors, including
U.S. lawmakers who have expressed concerns over the misuse of
cryptocurrencies in terror financing. Senator Cynthia Lummis and
Representative French Hill have both been vocal about the need for
stringent oversight of cryptocurrency transactions to prevent their
exploitation by terrorist networks.
Moreover, the lawsuit against Binance follows previous regulatory
and legal challenges faced by the exchange, including fines for AML
violations and the conviction of its former CEO. These incidents
have exposed vulnerabilities within the crypto exchange's
operational frameworks, prompting calls for enhanced compliance
protocols to prevent sanctioned entities and individuals from using
these platforms for financial transactions.
This legal action against Binance marks a critical juncture in the
ongoing debate over the accountability of cryptocurrency exchanges
in preventing their services from being used for unlawful
activities. The outcome of this lawsuit could lead to significant
changes in the regulatory landscape for digital currencies,
potentially establishing new precedents for the enforcement of AML
and CTF regulations within the crypto sector. [GN]
BLOOMINGTON & NORMAL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Brewer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brewer v. Bloomington &
Normal Water Reclamation District, Case No. 1:23-cv-01404-JES-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's standing order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UcbNAU
at no extra charge.[CC]
BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS: Bid to Stay Stafford Class Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR. on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BOJANGLES
RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00266-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order granting the
Defendant's Motion to Stay.
-- The Defendant's submission regarding class notice form and the
Plaintiffs' request to send class notice are terminated as
moot.
-- In light of the foregoing findings on the Hilton factors, the
Court concludes that a Rule 23(f) stay is appropriate.
Bojangles is an American regional chain of fast food restaurants
that specializes in Cajun-seasoned fried chicken.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D14jeL at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOULDER BJ: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KNERR and KARYN
SQUIRES, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
BOULDER BJ, LLC, ARVADA BJ, LLC, WESTMINSTER BJ, LLC LAKEWOOD BJ,
LLC TAMIAMI BJ, LLC, SINGLEDECK, LLC, and SAM ASKAR, Case No.
1:19-cv-00799-JLK-MEH (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting their second unopposed motion for extension
of time to Respond to plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) conditional certification and brief in support thereof.
On Dec. 26, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
the Plaintiffs' Motion.
A copy of the Defendants motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bsQaan at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick Q. Hustead, Esq.
Connor L. Cantrell, Esq.
Aaron M. Bell, Esq.
Jason J. Patel, Esq.
THE HUSTEAD LAW FIRM
4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 1250
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (303) 721-5000
E-mail: pqh@thlf.com
clc@thlf.com
amb@thlf.com
jjp@thlf.com
???
BRITISH AMERICAN: David Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
GARY DAVID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO P.L.C.; JACK MARIE
HENRY DAVID BOWLES; TADEU MARROCO; and JAVED IQBAL, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00517 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2024) is a class action
on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded BAT securities
between February 9, 2023 and December 6, 2023, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the press release and
SEC reports made by the Defendants were materially false and
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the
following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
British American Tobacco materially understated the risks and
potential likelihood of an impairment to its Premium American
Cigarette Brands as a result of various longstanding headwinds and;
(2) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
British American's ADR price fell $2.68 per share, or 8.88 percent,
to close at $28.86 per ADR on December 6, 2023. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the suit.
British American Tobacco P.L.C. operates as a holding company for a
group of companies that manufactures, markets, and sells cigarettes
and other tobacco products including cigars and roll-your-own
tobacco.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
CHANG LI SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardoso Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS CARDOSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHANG LI SUPERMARKET INC.; and CATHY JIANG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00636 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Cardoso was employed by the Defendants as a grocery
clerk.
CHANG LI SUPERMARKET INC. is a family-owned Asian grocery store
featuring sizable fish, meat & produce departments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
DISCOVER NY PROJECT: Perlmutter Sues Over Unlawful Booking Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
PINCHUS PERLMUTTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER NY PROJECT COMPANY, LLC
d/b/a RiseNY, Defendant, Case No. 650277/2024 (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., January 19, 2024) arises from the Defendant's improper
charging of online ticket purchases. Plaintiff Perlmutter alleges
that the Defendant has violated the New York Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law.
When a person visits the https://www.riseny.co website to purchase
a ticket, the initial quote presented is a fee-less price, which is
only later changed by the addition of a $5.00 "booking fee" at the
checkout for a General Admission ticket -- labeled or categorized
as "taxes & fees" -- and only after clicking through the various
screens required to make a purchase. Accordingly, the Defendant
failed to disclose the total cost of the ticket, including all
ancillary fees, prior to the tickets being selected for purchase in
violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law, says the suit.
Discover NY Project Company, LLC is a New York limited liability
company d/b/a RiseNY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-595-6200
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DUNKIN DONUTS: Discriminates Lactose Intolerant Customers
---------------------------------------------------------
The Economist reports that DUNKIN' sells about 60 cups of coffee
every second. That works out to be about 2bn cups a year. The
coffee-and-doughnut chain brags there are 25,000 ways to order
coffee in its shops. A recently filed class-action lawsuit claims
that customers ordering plant-based or lactose-free milk with
theirs are charged $0.50-2.15 more than those ordering cow's milk.
This amounts to discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the plaintiffs argue.
The ADA became law in 1990. Its aim was to give disabled people
equal access to places of business, and expanded it in 2008 to
broaden the definition of disability. The suit asserts that lactose
intolerance (the gastronomical symptoms of which are not at all
pleasant) is a disability and that the plaintiffs are entitled to
damages from Dunkin'.
Some are sceptical that this violates the ADA. Many consuming
plant-based drinks are doing so because of taste or because they
think cows' burps are bad for the planet. The lawsuit also asserts
there is no material difference in cost between milk and non-dairy
alternatives. But Ben Pierce, an analyst at the Good Food
Institute, says that "gallon for gallon, plant-based milk prices
were 87% higher than conventional milk in 2022."
Arlene Kanter, head of the disability law and policy programme at
Syracuse University, says the plaintiffs have a strong case.
Lactose intolerance meets the definition of disability as it is a
substantial limitation on a life activity (the right to drink
supersized takeaway coffee). If a wheelchair-bound driver needs
helps filling their car with petrol, petrol stations legally cannot
charge them extra. Keith Gibson, the lawyer who represents the
plaintiffs, says that "Dunkin' Donuts does not have to offer soy,
almond or oat milk for its coffee or lattes. But once they do, the
surcharge then is discriminatory."
Dunkin' has until March 4th to respond to the complaint. Some
chains, such as Tim Hortons, do not charge for non-dairy milk.
Starbucks was sued in 2022 for charging more for plant-based milk.
That case is still pending. Meanwhile, even the lawsuit's named
plaintiffs intend to continue going to Dunkin'. [GN]
[Redacted Feb. 14, 2024]
FLINT, MI: Settles Class Suit Over Water Crisis for $25M
--------------------------------------------------------
Arpan Lobo of Detroit Free Press reports that a group of Flint
residents, businesses and property owners have reached a settlement
agreement worth $25 million with an engineering firm that consulted
city officials after the 2014 Flint water crisis, according to a on
February 1, 2024 court filing.
Veolia North America, a Boston-based engineering firm, reached a
$25 million settlement with a group of class action claimants in
Flint. The class action was originally launched in 2016, after
plaintiffs said Veolia and another engineering firm that worked in
Flint after the onset of the water crisis, Lockwood, Andrews and
Newnam (LAN), failed to identify corroding pipes and acted too
slowly to address the water contamination. The exact details of the
settlement have not been made available yet.
The settlement agreement also includes payment of $1,500 for each
minor claimant represented in the lawsuit, up to $1.5 million,
according to attorneys.
"The Plaintiffs participating in this agreement have reached a
settlement in principle of all claims against (Veolia), including
those covered in the Consolidated Class Action case ... as well as
all claims by the certain Individual Claimants participating in the
settlement," a February 1, 2024 court filing announcing the
settlement agreement reads.
The settlement agreement means plaintiffs and Veolia will avoid a
trial, previously scheduled to start Feb. 13. Separately,
plaintiffs and LAN reached a settlement agreement last year.
The settlement is in addition to a $626.25 million settlement
reached between Flint residents and the state of Michigan, and
others, in 2021. Ted Leopold, one of the plaintiffs'
court-appointed attorneys and co-lead trial counsel and partner at
law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, said payments from that
settlement still haven't been issued, citing procedural issues.
"The administrators are trying to expedite it as quickly as they
can," Leopold said on February 1, 2024. "We hope that this
particular (payment) will move as expeditiously as possible."
Leopold hopes the settlement agreement can bring at least a bit of
relief to the Flint residents affected by the drinking water
crisis.
"It was such a horrific episode," he said. "Certainly, there's some
community history and decisions that were made by the state of
Michigan and others that I think run very deep and personal. I like
to say that litigation and closure can bring peace of mind and
justice, hopefully we've got some semblance of that here. But
there's a long history there."
To date, there have been class action settlements between residents
and the state, the city of Flint, McLaren Hospitals, and Rowe
Professional Services Co., an engineering firm.
Residents are also suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for its role in the city's water crisis, according to the
Associated Press.
In a news release, Veolia said it stands by its work in Flint and
"welcomes this opportunity to put the class litigation behind it."
The company said it was hired by Flint officials as a consultant 10
months after the city switched its main water source to the Flint
River, and conducted a one-week assessment.
"VNA made good recommendations, including a crucial one on
corrosion control, that would have helped the City had those
recommendations not been almost entirely ignored by the responsible
government officials," company officials wrote in a news release.
"VNA had no power over these decisions. VNA never operated the
Flint Water Plant."
U.S. District Judge Judith Levy still has to approve the settlement
agreement between plaintiffs and Veolia, Leopold said.
A mistrial was declared after a jury failed to reach a verdict in a
separate lawsuit against Veolia and LAN in August 2022. In that
trial, four children had sued the engineering firms, seeking
millions in damages after plaintiffs' attorneys claimed the lead
contamination in Flint's drinking water resulted in developmental
and social issues for the group.
The Flint water crisis started in 2014 when the city switched water
sources and lead, a neurotoxin particularly dangerous to children,
leached into the city's water supply. As the city struggled with
water quality, it also saw an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease and
deaths.
'It's just devastating':Flint reels as water crisis prosecution
comes to an end
Criminal investigations into the water crisis have ended after the
Michigan Supreme Court ruled prosecutors erred in having a judge
serve as a "one-man grand jury" to indict former Flint and state
officials, including former Gov. Rick Snyder.
The state's high court declined to hear an appeal launched by the
state in Snyder's case last October, signaling an end to the
state's criminal prosecution efforts. [GN]
FOUND OYSTER: Faces Class Suit Over Withholding Gratuities
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kang of Eater Los Angeles reports that a former server at
Found Oyster filed a class-action lawsuit on January 31, against
parent company Last Word Hospitality, alleging that the company
withheld tips in the form of service fees added to final bills. The
complaint was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf
of all food and beverage service employees who have worked at Last
Word restaurants at any time during the relevant four-year statute
of limitations, according to the plaintiff's attorney Shannon
Liss-Riordan.
Plaintiff Madison Bradfield-Davis claims she and "class members
have not received the total proceeds of the gratuities to which
they are entitled under California law," alleging that Last Word
had "a policy and practice of retaining for themselves a portion of
these gratuities and/or using a portion of these gratuities to pay
managers or other non-service employees." The suit hinges on four
points: whether funds collected from the restaurant service fees
constitute gratuities; whether the company failed to distribute the
total proceeds; if Last Word retained a portion of the fees; and
whether the company retained a portion to pay managers or other
non-service employees.
Last Word Hospitality encompasses a vast catalog of restaurant
properties in California including Found Oyster, Queen St., Barra
Santos, and Nossa Caipirinha Bar in Los Angeles; Red Dog Saloon in
Pioneertown; and the Copper Room in Yucca Valley, whose employees
could be impacted by the suit.
Reached by Eater, Last Word Hospitality co-founder Adam Weisblatt
issued the following statement:
"Deciding to enact a service charge was an ethical decision of how
to run a restaurant that equitably pays staff. We want to create
meaningful careers and see this as an important aspect of being
good employers. Dishwashers are as important to us as managers. 100
percent of service charges goes to FOH and BOH staff and their
benefits. We do not use service charges to pay base wages. The
statements on our menu and website and checks are accurate, legal,
and transparently shared with the entire staff. We will address the
lawsuit with the same good intentions we hold ourselves to in all
forms of business."
At U.S. restaurants, diners typically expect to pay a 15 to 20
percent tip on top of bills. California law states that these tips
are the property of the employees, and must be given in full to
staff who provide direct table service or are involved in the
"chain of service." Tips can be pooled and shared with other staff
such as bussers and bartenders, but cannot be used to compensate
owners, managers, or supervisors. Surcharges of 3 to 5 percent have
become commonplace on the bottom of menus, with notes calling them
health care surcharges or fees to compensate for increasing costs.
Some restaurants have gone further, introducing larger compulsory
service fees of 20 percent or more, purportedly to guarantee staff
a predictable wage in place of a tip arbitrarily determined by the
customer, and in some cases to level the playing field between
front- and back-of-house staff.
The ethics surrounding tipping and pay discrepancies between front-
and back-of-house staff is an ongoing conversation happening
throughout the service industry centered on the tipped minimum
wage. The State of California already requires employers to pay a
standard minimum wage as opposed to a tipped minimum wage (a
combination of a lower hourly wage plus gratuity that must average
out to the state's minimum hourly wage).
Last Word restaurants Found Oyster, Barra Santos, Queen St., Copper
Room, and Nossa Caipirinha Bar all add a 20 percent charge, while
Red Dog Saloon adds a 16 percent charge, according to menus posted
on business websites. (Eater reached out to verify these
percentages and Weisblatt declined to comment.) Its newest
takeout-only eatery, Shins Pizza, does not charge a service fee but
does accept standard tips through its online ordering system.
The lawsuit against Last Word argues that the percentage amount is
confusing to customers who may think the fee is a replacement for
leaving a customary tip. "This service charge has been in the form
of an automatic charge which customers are required to pay and
which reasonably appears to be a gratuity for the service staff,"
the complaint states. "When customers have paid these 20 percent
service charges on [Last Word Hospitality's] bills, it is
reasonable for them to have believed they were gratuities to be
paid to the service staff, as that is customarily the percentage
added as gratuity or tip in the hospitality industry."
Bradfield-Davis, on behalf of fellow employees covered by the suit,
is asking to be compensated for all funds allegedly not
distributed, plus interest, attorney's fees, and other expenses.
"Service fees have become a flashpoint across the country, even
sparking Reddit users to list LA restaurants that charge them."
The complaint is similar to an ongoing lawsuit filed against Jon &
Vinny's in June 2023 in which servers claimed that customers could
have reasonably believed the restaurant's 18 percent service fee
was a gratuity for service staff. (Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan
represents the employees at Jon & Vinny's and Last Word Hospitality
in their respective lawsuits.) These lawsuits raise questions
across the Los Angeles restaurant industry about the use of service
charges and whether they actually confuse consumers, or lead diners
to conflate them with tips. Service fees have become a flashpoint
across the country, even sparking Reddit users to list all LA and
Chicago restaurants that charge them.
In 2019, a state appeals court ruled that service charges belonged
to employees under California law if they are reasonably viewed as
tips by customers. In May 2023, a judge found that San Francisco
Marriott Hotel illegally kept about $9 million in banquet "service
charges" that customers reasonably understood to be tips for good
servers, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The hotel was
ordered to pay fees to hundreds of banquet servers who worked for
the company between 2012 to April 2017.
Founded by Holly Fox and Adam Weisblatt in 2014, Last Word
Hospitality made a big splash with its 2019 opening of Found
Oyster, in partnership with chef Ari Kolender, garnering praise for
its East Coast oyster bar fare. They've become operators of other
popular LA restaurants, including Barra Santos, which was listed as
a 2024 James Beard Award semifinalist for Best New Restaurant. The
group's follow-up to Found Oyster, Queen St., opened in Highland
Park in June 2023.
On each of its restaurant menus, Last Word states that the service
fee is "given in its entirety to the staff for equitable earnings,
medical, and retirement benefits." Each restaurant's website offers
the company's rationale for charging the service fee. For example,
the Copper Room's reads:
"The Copper Room is committed to creating a workplace where the
delineation between FOH and BOH is blurred, earnings are more
equitable, and careers progress with increased earnings along with
increased responsibility. It is our goal to provide a path that can
begin at any position, advance into management, and eventually into
ownership.
Although the cultural construct of tipping culture is still
prevalent, we believe the practice is outdated. We firmly believe
that the future of restaurants will reflect the international
model, where staff is not reliant on gratuities from guests, and
earnings are more stable. The service charge model is the first
step in this process, and we hope to lead the way as progressive
operators."
Last Word's statement acknowledges the issues inherent in tipping
culture in restaurants and attempts to use service charges as a way
of changing the compensation model for staff. In two current job
openings written at the time of publication, Last Word said
compensation of base hourly pay of $16.78 (the current minimum wage
in Los Angeles) plus service charges would average $30 to $35 for
the positions of oyster shucker or line cook. The listings also
noted compensation would include health insurance and tips. [GN]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Certifies ChapStick Label Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Mindock of Reuters reports that a lawsuit accusing a former
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) unit and Pfizer (PFE.N) of misleading
consumers by marketing some ChapStick products as "all natural" and
"naturally sourced" even though they allegedly contain synthetic or
highly processed ingredients can move ahead as a class action, a
California federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland on January 30, 2024
certified a class of California ChapStick purchasers led by state
resident Lisa Moore, finding their interests were sufficiently
aligned.
The judge declined to certify a damages class, however, concluding
the plaintiffs had not provided adequate evidence of how much the
alleged false marketing caused consumers to overspend on the
products.
Attorneys for the class said in a statement that the class
certification decision "will propel the case forward to trial," and
said they believe they can "easily cure" deficiencies that have so
far kept the damages class from being certified.
GSK and Pfizer had controlled the ChapStick brand through a
consumer healthcare joint venture, which they spun off in July 2022
into a new company, Haleon (HLN.L). The companies on January 31,
2024 referred questions to Haleon, which did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.
Moore's 2020 lawsuit alleged violations of California consumer
protection and business laws and sought to create a class
representing all California residents who purchased certain
ChapStick products in the prior four years.
Moore claimed she and others were misled by labels on six of the
lip balm products and may not have purchased them had they known
they contain synthetic or highly processed ingredients.
The companies have said a reasonable consumer would not be misled
by the packaging claims, arguing most people would assume
manufacturing ChapStick involves adding and processing ingredients
since the product is not found in nature.
Haleon said earlier this month that personal care brand Suave has
agreed to buy the ChapStick brand for around $430 million in cash
and an $80 million stake in Haleon.
The case is Lisa Moore et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer
Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California case No. 4:20-cv-09077.
For the class: Ryan Clarkson and Katherine Bruce of Clarkson Law
Firm
For the defendants: Jonathan Tam and Jacqueline Harrington of
Dechert [GN]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Settles Class Suit Over Home Sales Prices for $70M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Report Staff of Business Report reports that Keller Williams
Realty reached a $70 million settlement on February 1, 2024 in a
class-action lawsuit alleging the residential real estate industry
conspired to keep housing sales prices high, reports The Wall
Street Journal.
The agreement marks the third major brokerage to settle over such
claims. Anywhere Real Estate and Re/Max holdings settled claims in
Missouri last fall.
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs argue that unlawful industry practices
have left consumers unable to negotiate for lower commission costs
even though many buyers can find homes themselves online.
Michael Ketchmark, an attorney for the plaintiffs, says the
settlements reflect a decision not to bankrupt the defendants but
reach a number they could realistically pay, and that the
settlement shows that major players in the industry recognize they
must change their business practices to survive.
"This is a recognition that it's going to change," he says.
The Wall Street Journal writes that the deal underscores the
pressure on real estate brokerages to resolve the legal claims
rather than pay for protracted and uncertain litigation. Since the
October verdict, many copycat cases have been filed around the
country naming a variety of real estate brokerages and Realtor
associations as defendants.
The continuing cases are adding financial stress to an industry
already pressured by a slow period for home sales.
"We had full confidence in the strength of our appeal," Gary
Keller, executive chair at Keller Williams, wrote in an email to
the company's agents and staff on February 1, 2024 morning. "But we
also knew the appellate process could be long and
unpredictable???and that our franchisees and agents would have no
protection and complete uncertainty while that process played out
over time." [GN]
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Judge Denies 401(k) Suit Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Kimberly-Clark Corp.
employees challenging their $4 billion retirement plan's
administrative fees can't have their lawsuit certified as a class
action because they missed the deadline to file a motion with the
court.
Judge Sam A. Lindsay on January 31, 2024 declined to approve the
parties' proposed schedule for litigating the question of class
certification, saying the workers missed the deadline for seeking
class status by many months. Lindsay explained that class
certification motions are due within 90 days of a complaint being
filed, unless the judge grants an extension. The Kimberly-Clark
workers neither filed a motion within that timeframe nor sought.
[GN]
LATTER-DAY SAINTS: Judson Sues Over Improper Use of Tithe Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
GENE JUDSON; and MICHELLE JUDSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORPORATION OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS; and
ENSIGN PEAK ADVISERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00796
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2024) alleges violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition
Law.
The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint the Defendants
misrepresented to the Plaintiffs and Class Members that their
monetary contributions, known as "tithing" or "tithing funds", were
not being used for commercial, for-profit purposes when, in fact,
the Defendants used at least $1.4 billion in tithing funds to
finance a commercial, for-profit shopping mall during relevant
times, and have otherwise diverted tithing funds for
profit-generating, non-charitable purposes.
The misrepresentations made by the Defendants through its agents
and employees, including the president and other high-ranking
leaders of the LDS Church, that tithing funds were not used to
finance City Creek Center or other commercial, for-profit purposes
-- were false, intentional, and made to induce the Plaintiffs and
Class Members to continue paying tithing funds in spite of the
Defendants having amassed $100 billion in assets and using member
donations for commercial, for-profit purposes and not the Defendant
Church's published purposes, says the suit.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of Salt Lake City Utah
operates as a non-profit religious organization. The Church
provides religious services to its local community in the United
States. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints offers
assistance to its members and others in need, hardship, sickness,
as well as distress. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David B. Jonelis, Esq.
LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
Telephone: (310) 556-3501
Email: djonelis@lavelysinger.com
- and -
Todd S. Eagan, Esq.
EAGAN LAW CORPORATION
401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 304-3302
Email: teagan@eaganlawcorp.com
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alexander Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00208-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2024) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE GROUP, LLC was founded in 2011. The company's
line of business includes providing insurance agent and broker
services for a range of insurance types. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: mike@kazlg.com
- and -
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
LOANDEPOT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Penird Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMY PENIRD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00180-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to secure the sensitive personal
information of the Plaintiff and more than 16.6 million of its
customers.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on January 8, 2024,
the Defendant announced that the personally identifiable
information ("PII") of potentially 16.6 million of its customers
had been breached and exfiltrated (the "Data Breach"). Though the
Defendant has not yet disclosed the type of personally identifiable
information compromised in the Breach, considering the Defendant's
services.
As a result of the breach, the PII of the millions of impacted
individuals been compromised and can be sold for improper use on
the dark web, a black market for exposed personal information.
Defendant's customers face a lifetime risk of identity theft???a
present and ongoing threat heightened by the loss of their social
security numbers, says the suit.
LOANDEPOT, INC. provides mortgage and non-mortgage loan products.
The Company offers a broad suite of consumer credit products to
customers, ranging from home loans to unsecured personal loans.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Simon S. Grille, Esq.
Jordan Isern, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
jisern@girardsharp.com
MAPLEBEAR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common
stock of Maplebear Inc. (d/b/a Instacart) (NASDAQ: CART):
(i) pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents
issued in connection with the Company's September 19, 2023 initial
public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or
(ii) between September 19, 2023 and October 1, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 25, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Instacart 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 Instacart class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22209 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 March 25, 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 regarding Instacart's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering
Documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Instacart had overstated the extent to which online
grocery shopping and delivery habits among consumers were
accelerating;
(2) Instacart had downplayed the extent of the competition
that it faced in the online grocery shopping and delivery market;
(3) accordingly, defendants overstated Instacart's post-IPO
growth, business, and financial prospects; and
(4) as a result, Instacart's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Instacart class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22209 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]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Flores Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Flores v. Fisher
Price, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01076 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 14, 2019), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order scheduling hearing on motion to
certify class and initial pretrial conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Flores suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Hanson Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanson v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01087
(W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford
entered an order scheduling hearing on motion to certify class and
initial pretrial conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Hanson suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Kimmel Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimmel v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00695
(W.D.N.Y., Filed May 29, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford
entered an order scheduling hearing on motion to certify class and
initial pretrial conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Kimmel suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Mulvey Suit Set for Feb. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mulvey, et al., v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00518 (W.D.N.Y., Filed
April 19, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order
scheduling hearing on motion to certify class and initial pretrial
conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Mulvey suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Nabong v. Mattel Set for Feb. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NABONG v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May 22, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order scheduling hearing on
motion to certify class and initial pretrial conference for Feb.
23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Nabong suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.[CC]
MLM CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ; and CRISTOPHER FERNANDEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MLM
CONSTRUCTION INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00474 (D.N.J., Jan.
25, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as construction
workers.
MLM CONSTRUCTION INC. operates as a specialty trade contractor.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Mobileye Global Inc. ("Mobileye" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
MBLY). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
The class action concerns whether Mobileye Solutions and certain of
its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices.
You have until March 16, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Mobileye securities during the Class Period.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On January 4, 2024, before the market opened, Mobileye issued a
press release disclosing that it had "become aware" of a build-up
of excess inventory including an estimated 6-7 million units of
EyeQ SoCs held by customers. The Company stated this was a result
of "supply chain constraints in 2021 and 2022 and a desire to avoid
part shortages" and "lower than-expected production at certain
OEM???s during 2023." Mobileye then disclosed "the
lower-than-expected volumes in the EyeQ SoC business will have a
temporary impact on our profitability[.]" The Company also provided
a preliminary financial outlook for 2024, in which it stated it
"expect[s] Q1 revenue to be down approximately 50%, as compared to
the $458 million revenue generated in the first quarter of 2023."
On this news, Mobileye???s stock price fell $9.75 per share, or
24%, to close at $29.97 per share on January 4, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
600 3rd Ave
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 646-581-9980 ext. 7980
Email: dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN]
MON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Fernandez, writing for Times West Virginian, reports Mon
Health System is facing a potential class action over a lawsuit due
to a data breach that happened in 2021.
John Guido and Mark Wolfe filed their complaint against Mon Health
in Marion County Court in January 2022. The plaintiff's later filed
a motion for class certification on behalf of the 400,000 people
who were victims of the data breach. Marion County Circuit Court
Judge Patrick Wilson held a hearing to determine if the case would
be certified as a class action or not.
"We need to protect everybody's data on a large scale basis, better
than before," Matthew Stonestreet, attorney for the plaintiff,
said. "There's roughly 400,000 people in the proposed classroom to
not just make sure one person's information is protected, but to
make sure that everybody's is and to avoid anything like this ever
happening again."
Stonestreet and his partner, Troy Giatras, of the Charleston-based
Giatras Law Firm, is representing Guido in court. According to the
clerk's notes, attorney Tim Manchin, of Fairmont, stood in to
represent another plaintiff. Mon Health was represented by
attorneys Russell Jesee and David Carney. The Times West Virginian
reached out to Mon Health's representation but did not hear back by
press time.
The lawsuit alleges that Mon Health failed to implement basic
security procedures, such as device encryption, and other measures
which resulted in the theft of private health care information from
the health provider's computer systems.
The filing states that the breach occurred as the result of a
phishing attempt, and later states the defendant failed to monitor
its contractor's email account to safeguard patient information.
"The plaintiff's privacy was breached, as was the sensitive
information of several hundreds of consumer patients -- and now,
because of the defendant, their sensitive information is forever in
the ether," the complaint states. "And this breach and invasion of
the patient-physician relationship occurred to the extreme
detriment of the plaintiff and the putative class members," the
complaint states.
It also states that Mon Health failed to properly train and
supervise its employees and contractors, contributing to the
negligence that led to the theft. The plaintiff is seeking damages,
as well as relief in the form of consumer credit protection and
monitoring services for the class, as well as requiring Mon Health
to establish a device encryption security program to prevent such a
breach from happening again.
In their response, Mon Health denied the allegations and various
charges made by the plaintiff, which contained invasion of privacy,
breach of confidentiality, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of
contract, reckless indifference, negligent supervision and breach
of good faith and fair dealing.
Mon Health's response also state's that the plaintiff lacks
standing to sue and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction over the
complaint. It also argues the plaintiff failed to state a claim on
which relief can be granted, and granting damages would violate Mon
Health's rights.
"The imposition of aggregated, class wide damages in this case
would be excessive and violate Mon Health's due process and
constitutional rights," the answer reads.
At court, Stonestreet argued in favor of class certification,
stating that the case falls under rule 23. Rule 23 examines under
what conditions a case can be treated as a class action rather than
a one-off case.
"In order for the court to grant a certification or say the case
can proceed as a class action, the court has to look at that role
and go through the factors in that role and say, ???yes, that case
meets those factors,'" Stonestreet said.
According to the clerk's notes, Stonestreet argued commonality and
typicality in regards to the class action rule, meeting the
standard for certification. Commonality refers to legal questions
that can apply as a whole to an entire class, while typicality
refers to whether the party standing in for the class is making
claims or defenses that apply to everyone in the class.
"In class actions, what you're able to do is say, ???hey, there are
common issues between all the individuals and the actions that
occurred,'" Giatras said.
Carney argued there is no evidence that the plaintiff's information
was compromised, despite receiving a letter from Mon Health that
their information had been compromised. Since the case belongs to
the realm of invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality,
there is no evidence justifying a class certification to the case,
he argued. He moved that the court deny the motion.
After hearing arguments, Wilson took it under advisement and
recessed the court. Stonestreet said he expects to hear the outcome
of the hearing somewhere in two or three weeks. In the meantime,
protecting data privacy rights is very important to the Giatras Law
Firm, Stonestreet said.
"This was terrible," Giatras said. "Medical information disclosed
to anyone other than who you want it to be disclosed to is
terrible, and it can be frightening. Medical information is very
private. Nobody wants to have that stuff put up on a billboard on
I-79."
MONCTON HOSPITAL: Court Grants Leave to Appeal Induced Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon, writing for CBC News, reports that New
Brunswick's highest court has agreed to review a judge's decision
to not certify a class-action lawsuit that alleges a former nurse
at the Moncton Hospital administered a labour-inducing drug to
potentially "hundreds" of pregnant women without their consent.
The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick granted leave to appeal in the
case of representative plaintiff Jayde Scott against Nicole Ruest
and her former employer, Horizon Health Network.
Justice Kathleen Quigg, who heard the motion, also ordered the
respondents to each pay $1,500 in costs.
John McKiggan, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said he's
pleased the court has agreed to hear the appeal.
"Hopefully the Court of Appeal will agree that a class action is
the most appropriate process so that the mothers that are part of
this class action can finally get answers about what happened to
them," he said in an emailed statement.
The lawsuit began nearly five years ago.
In her statement of claim, representative plaintiff Jayde Scott
said she was admitted to the Moncton Hospital on March 27, 2019, in
preparation for the delivery of twins.
She alleges Ruest inserted an intravenous line and, shortly after,
she experienced strong and prolonged contractions, which caused the
twins to go into fetal distress, ultimately resulting in her
undergoing an emergency C-section over concern for their
well-being.
Her obstetrician told her that she found oxytocin in her IV bag and
that Ruest had been fired, according to the court document.
Oxytocin causes the uterus to contract and can be dangerous for the
health of the fetus as it can cut off oxygen supply and affect the
fetal heart rate.
Affidavits from seven other women describe similar experiences.
None of the allegations has been proven in court.
Crown prosecutors determined there wasn't enough evidence to
proceed with criminal charges after an RCMP investigation.
Class action not appropriate, judge ruled
On Nov. 29, Court of King's Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare
denied a motion to certify the class action. In a written decision,
DeWare said she didn't think a class-action lawsuit would be
appropriate for litigating the claim against Ruest and Horizon.
"In reviewing the common issues and the evidentiary record, I am
unable to conclude that there is an identifiable class from which
common issues arise that will best be resolved through the
mechanism of a class proceeding," DeWare wrote.
"I am equally unable to conceive of an appropriate litigation plan
that would allow a class proceeding to be truly the most efficient
way to manage these potential claims of medical malpractice and
negligence."
According to McKiggan, medical malpractice is "among the most
expensive, complicated, difficult and time-consuming of all
personal injury claims."
He contends it would be "impractical" for the "hundreds" of women
who believe they were inappropriately given oxytocin to file
individual claims and expert evidence.
In an emailed statement, Ruest's Toronto-based lawyer Andrew Faith
said: "While it would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of
the appeal itself while the matter is before the courts, we say
again that there is no foundation to the allegations against Ms.
Ruest.
"She looks forward to arguing her case at the Court of Appeal and
to finally putting this matter behind her," he said.
Horizon's Fredericton-based lawyers, Andrea Pierce and Ryan
Burgoyne, could not immediately be reached for comment.
A date for the appeal, which will be heard by a full panel, has not
yet been set. [GN]
NAVY FEDERAL: Settles Class Suit Over ISA Fee for $5.5M
-------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Navy Federal Credit Union agreed to
a $5.5 million settlement in a class action lawsuit that claimed it
breached its agreements with account holders by assessing fees on
debit transactions.
The settlement class is composed of all Navy Federal account
holders charged at least one ISA fee for transactions conducted in
the United States between Aug. 9, 2016, and March 24, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case alleged that within the class period,
the defendant committed a breach of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by charging an
international service assessment (ISA) fee for transactions made in
the U.S.
Navy Federal Credit Union has refuted any wrongdoing, asserting
that the lawsuit lacks merit and that the company assessed the fees
properly and per the terms of the debit card disclosure provided to
new members when they open a debit card.
Navy Federal Credit Union is a not-for-profit credit union
exclusively serving the military, veterans and their families. The
company serves over 13 million customers in the U.S.
Navy Federal Credit Union will pay $5,500,000 into a settlement
fund, and eligible class members can receive financial compensation
if the settlement is approved and becomes final.
Class members must submit a claim form online or by mail to receive
a payment. Class members can access the online form by entering a
unique ID and PIN previously mailed out. The maximum possible base
payment is $4.
If there are remaining funds in the net settlement fund after the
total base payments are determined, the surplus will be paid to
class members who submitted valid claims and incurred ISA fees
exceeding $4 during the class period. This additional payment will
be the amount equal to each of the class member's respective actual
ISA fees, less $4. If insufficient funds remain to pay those
eligible an additional payment in the total amount of their
respective actual ISA fees, the payments will be reduced pro rata.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 23, 2024.
A final approval hearing in the Navy Federal Credit Union class
action lawsuit settlement will take place May 23, 2024.
The claim form submission deadline is June 7, 2024.
Who's Eligible
All Navy Federal account holders who were charged at least one ISA
fee for transactions conducted in the United States between Aug. 9,
2016, and March 24, 2023.
Potential Award
$4
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM ??
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
06/07/2024
Case Name
Morrow, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:21-cv-722,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division
Final Hearing
05/23/24
Settlement Website
NFCUFeeLitigation.com
Claims Administrator
Morrow v. Navy Federal Settlement Administrator
PO Box 2329
Portland, OR 97208-2329
877-581-8129
Class Counsel
Sophia Gold
KALIELGOLD PLLC
Jeff Ostrow
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
(Eddie) Jae K. Kim
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
David Wilkerson
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
Defense Counsel
Michael Gottlieb
Meryl Governski
Nicholas Reddick
WILKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP [GN]
NISWI LLC: Faces Suit Over Excessive Payday Loan Interest Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims the entities behind online lending website
LendUMo.com are involved in an illegal "rent-a-tribe" scheme
whereby Illinois consumers have been issued payday loans with
excessive interest rates.
The 20-page lawsuit alleges that although defendants Niswi, LLC --
which does business as LendUMo -- and LDF Holdings, LLC purport to
be owned by a small, federally recognized Native American tribe
based in rural Wisconsin, the non-tribal lenders are, in reality,
exploiting the tribe's sovereign immunity in order to evade state
usury laws.
The suit also names as defendants Brittany Allen, an executive who
apparently directed and controlled the lending practices of LDF
Holdings, and Soaren Management, LLC, a "service provider" for
LendUMo which the case claims is the online lender's true owner.
According to the complaint, LendUMo has extended loans to Illinois
residents at annual percentage rates greater than 450 percent. The
unlawful loans are void and unenforceable under the Illinois
Interest Act, which prohibits unlicensed entities from issuing
loans at more than nine percent interest, the filing contends.
Notably, though the companies behind the online lending website
claim to be operated by the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, much of the economic benefit finds its way into
non-tribal pockets, the lawsuit contends. In fact, the tribe
receives only between one and three percent of the revenues
generated by the lending operation in exchange for the use of its
name, the suit shares.
In January 2022, the Illinois plaintiff took out a $1,300 loan from
LendUMo with an interest rate of 580.94 percent -- far in excess of
the legal maximum, the case charges.
The lawsuit looks to represent:
"(a) [All] individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom a loan
was made in the name of LendUMo at more than 9% interest (c) which
loan has not been paid in full;"
"(a) [All] individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom a loan
was made in the name of LendUMo at more than 9% interest (c) which
loan is still outstanding or has been paid on or after a date two
years prior to the filing of suit;" and
"(a) [All] individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom a loan
was made in the name of Niswi, LLC [doing business as] LendUMo at
more than 36% interest (all of its loans qualify) (c) which loan
was made on or after a date 4 years prior to the filing of suit."
[GN]
OAK VIEW: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Andersen Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SALLY ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OAK VIEW GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00719 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2024) is a class action arises
out of the recent cyberattack and data breach ("Data Breach")
resulting from Oak View's failure to implement reasonable and
industry standard data security practices.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect its employees' personally identifiable information ("PII")
from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Defendant maintained the PII in a reckless manner. In
particular, the PII was maintained on Defendant's computer network
in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. As a result of the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The
Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely
monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft,
says the suit.
OAK VIEW GROUP, LLC operates as an entertainment and sports
facilities company. The Company offers arena and stadium alliance,
consulting, sponsorships and partnerships, venture capital, and
global facilities.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
PACIFIC MARKET: Reusable Cups Contain Lead, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that the maker of
the ultra-popular Stanley cups was sued on Thursday in California
state court by four women who say the company misled consumers by
failing to disclose that the product contains lead, a toxic
substance.
The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, alleges that Stanley
brand owner Pacific Market International marketed the reusable cups
as safe and durable while knowing that there was lead in the cups'
vacuum seals.
The women, who filed their case in Los Angeles, say they would not
have purchased the cups had they known that the cups contained
lead, arguing that they could have been exposed to the metal.
"PMI kept customers in the dark so as not to interfere with its
bonanza of influencer-driven sales, especially sales to young
women," the lawsuit said.
Representatives for Pacific Market International did not
immediately respond to questions about the lawsuit's allegations.
John Rushing, a lawyer representing the women, told Reuters that
Stanley "could have been honest with customers," but "chose not
to."
The women seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a
permanent injunction requiring Stanley to disclose the presence of
lead and any other toxins in its products in California.
The company has acknowledged in a statement posted on its website
that there is lead present in the seal for the cup's vacuum
insulation, but it said "no lead is present on the surface of any
Stanley product that comes into contact with the consumer nor the
contents of the product."
The Stanley cups, formally known as the Stanley Quencher cups,
retail for between $35 and $50. Recent sales of the cups, driven
largely by social media, propelled the 100-year-old, privately held
Stanley brand to a ten-fold increase of $750 million in revenue
last year, according to CNBC in December.
Posts about lead in the cups have exploded on social media in
recent weeks, with some consumers posting at-home lead tests on
their cups on TikTok. [GN]
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Courtmanche Sues Over Oil Price Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN COURTMANCHE; LAURA J. FABER; PATRICIA MANCIERI; DAVID SILVER;
and JOSSELYN'S GETAWAY LOG CABINS, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERMIAN RESOURCES
CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE
ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY,
INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00198 (D. Nev., Jan. 29, 2024) is a class action
arising from the Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and
ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had
the purpose and effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the
price of crude oil -- and, as a direct result, the price of home
heating oil ("HHO").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
agreement to refrain from increasing their shale oil production was
part of a larger agreement with the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries ("OPEC"), the international cartel of the
largest oil-producing nations, whose stated purpose is to
manipulate global oil prices by coordinating production levels
amongst its members.
The Defendants' conspiracy, which limited each of their respective
shale oil production volumes, had the purpose and effect of fixing,
stabilizing, or maintaining crude oil prices -- and, in turn, HHO
prices -- at artificially inflated levels throughout the United
States during the Class Period.
The cartel formed by the Defendants' conspiracy is a per se
unlawful restraint of trade under not only federal antitrust law
but numerous state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer
protection laws. Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Classes
suffered substantial harm by virtue of the supracompetitive prices
they paid for HHO as a direct and proximate result of the cartel
and the resulting agreement to constrain domestic shale oil
production, says the suit.
PERMIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION operates as an oil and gas company.
The Company focuses on the development of unconventional oil and
associated liquid-rich natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin,
as well as offers geology, engineering, and drilling services.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert F. Purdy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M.
LEAVITT, ESQ.
633 South Seventh Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 382-2800
Facsimile: (702) 382-7438
Email: Robert.purdy@andrewleavittlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq.
AETON LAW PARTNERS LLP
311 Centerpoint Drive
Middletown, CT 06475
Telephone: (860) 724.2160
Email: jms@aetonlaw.com
- and -
Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
Nia Barberousse Binns, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
100 Tri-State International, Suite 128
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Email: mruan@fklmlaw.com
dmillen@fklmlaw.com
mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
nbinns@fklmlaw.com
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JDSupra reports that on January 19,
2024, Judge Orelia Merchant of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York dismissed a proposed securities
class action against a lithium mining company (the "Company") and
certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants")
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In re Piedmont Lithium
Inc., Sec. Litig., 21-CV-4161 (OEM) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2024).
Plaintiff alleged that the Company made misleading positive
statements in connection with a North Carolina lithium mining
project (the "Project") and that the Individual Defendants
subsequently sold Company stock prior to the release of a negative
news article. The Court dismissed plaintiff's claims, finding that
plaintiff had failed to raise a strong inference of scienter.
In 2016, the Company commenced plans to covert spodumene???a
mineral that contains lithium???into battery-grade lithium
hydroxide, a critical component used for electric vehicle
manufacturing. According to the complaint, in February 2018, the
Company became aware that it needed to obtain permits and rezoning
approvals from various federal, state and local government
authorities, including Gaston County's Board of Commissioners (the
"County Board"). In the summer of 2018, the Company allegedly made
positive statements about obtaining such permits and approvals,
indicating that the applications would be submitted by April 2019.
Again, in August 2019 and in early 2020, the Company allegedly
repeated that the applications would be submitted soon. In July of
2021, the CEO of the Company and a project manager allegedly sold
approximately $3.46 million worth of their personal stock for the
first time. Three weeks later, an article reported that the Company
had not presented the Project to the County Board, that certain
County Board members planned to block the Project, and that the
Company had not yet applied for a state mining permit, rendering
its timeline unrealistic.
First, the Court held that plaintiff did not sufficiently plead
that the Company had motive and opportunity to commit fraud based
on unusual stock sales. Specifically, the Court noted that (i)
plaintiff did not allege how much certain Individual Defendants
received in net profits, only what they received in gross proceeds;
(ii) the percentage of stock sold was only 13.19% for the Company
CEO and 31.93% for the project manager, which was a relatively low
percentage; (iii) other Individual Defendants did not sell any
Company stock; and (iv) the Company's alleged desire to raise
capital and enter into a favorable deal with an electric vehicle
company was not sufficient to establish a motive for securities
fraud.
Second, the Court held that plaintiff had failed to adequately
plead scienter by identifying conscious misbehavior and
recklessness on the part of defendants. The Court held that
plaintiff pleaded only "generalized, conclusory allegations that
[the Company] and the Individual Defendants, as a group, had actual
knowledge of the misrepresentations and omissions of material
facts, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth," but failed
to raise a strong inference of scienter for each Individual
Defendant. The Court also held that bald allegations concerning the
Individual Defendants' positions in the Company and their
signatures on relevant SEC documents did not prove that Individual
Defendants had access to information that contradicted their public
statements about the Project at the time the statements were made.
Additionally, the Court held that the mere fact that the Project's
timeline was continually pushed back was insufficient to
demonstrate recklessness when plaintiff "failed to sufficiently
allege how or why Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing
that their statements about the permitting and rezoning timelines
were false, or that the changes in timelines demonstrated culpable
conduct."
Finally, the Court rejected plaintiff's attempt to invoke the Core
Operations Doctrine, which imputes knowledge of a company's core
operations to senior level management. Plaintiff alleged that each
Individual Defendant knew of, or had access to, information
regarding the status of the required permits and rezoning
activities at the time the Company made positive statements
regarding the Project. The Court held that the Core Operations
Doctrine did not apply because plaintiff could not explain how the
Project, which never launched, constituted "nearly all of [the
Company's] business." Further, even if the Project was considered
to be nearly all of the Company's business, the Court held that
plaintiff merely alleged "that Defendants knew that they needed
certain permits, not that the projected timelines to receive the
permits were unreasonable or unrealistic." [GN]
POPULAR BANK: Second Circuit Court Rules Over Account Update
------------------------------------------------------------
James Bogan III of JDSupra reports that we have written many
articles about how businesses seek to enter enforceable arbitration
agreements containing class action waivers with their customers,
whether through "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" agreements or by other
efforts to "amend" or "modify" earlier customer agreements. These
mechanisms usually do not require the customer to actually read the
contractual terms. This issue is governed by state contract law,
and where a customer does not actually read a contract ??? and
thereby does not have "actual notice" of terms and conditions ??? a
customer is nevertheless bound by terms if the customer is on
inquiry notice of the terms and assents to them through conduct
that a reasonable person would understand to constitute assent. In
a recent case, Lipsett v. Popular Bank, No. 22-3193-cv, 2024 WL
111247 (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2024), a Second Circuit panel recently
found that a bank's effort to impose such terms and conditions by
mailing an "update" to a customer was insufficient to establish
contractual assent.
In 2022, Frankie Lipsett filed a putative class action against
Popular Bank in the Southern District of New York, asserting claims
arising out of a banking relationship he had maintained with the
bank beginning in 2004. Popular Bank moved to compel arbitration,
asserting that account updates delivered to Mr. Lipsett over the
ensuing years imposed terms and conditions that included a
compulsory arbitration clause and class action waiver. The district
court denied Popular Bank's motion, focusing on the bank's failure
to give Mr. Lipsett an opportunity to opt out of the arbitration
agreement. The Second Circuit affirmed the court's order denying
arbitration, but not on the ground relied on by the district court.
Rather, the Court of Appeals affirmed "on the sole basis that
Lipsett did not receive sufficiently clear notice that he was bound
by the arbitration provision at issue in this case, as required
under New York law." Lipsett, 2024 WL 111247, at *1 (also citing
the "right for any reason" rule supporting affirmance of an
underlying judgment).
Of the multiple updates purportedly sent to Mr. Lipsett over the
years, Popular Bank conceded at oral argument that it had only
mailed him a 2013-14 Agreement accompanied by a notice letter.
Accordingly, the panel focused on this limited set of documents in
analyzing whether Mr. Lipsett agreed to the arbitration clause and
class action waiver.
The panel laid out the basic legal requirements: (1) " [t]he party
seeking to compel arbitration bears the initial burden of
demonstrating the existence of an agreement to arbitrate"; (2) "a
contract requires a meeting of the minds and a manifestation of
mutual assent"; (3) a "manifestation of mutual assent must be
sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in
agreement with respect to all material terms"; (4) "[w]here the
requested assent is largely passive, courts focus on whether the
terms were 'reasonably communicated to the user'"; (5) where an
offeree does not read a contract and does not have "actual notice
of certain contract terms, he is nevertheless bound by such terms
if he is on inquiry notice of them and assents to them through
conduct that a reasonable person would understand to constitute
assent"; and (6) inquiry notice "turns on whether the contract
terms were presented to the offeree in a clear and conspicuous way"
considering the "totality of the circumstances." Id. at *1-2
(citations omitted).
Applying these rules of contract formation, the panel ruled that
Mr. Lipsett did not agree to arbitrate, for three reasons.
First, the notice letter stated, in misleading fashion, that there
"continues to be a Mandatory Arbitration Provision," even though
there was no evidence that Mr. Lipsett had ever agreed to arbitrate
before. According to the panel, "[t]his statement signals to a
reasonable customer like Lipsett, who was not previously informed
of the arbitration provision or consented to arbitration and
therefore not bound by any previous iteration of the arbitration
provision, that it does not apply to him and that his agreement
with the Bank remained effectively unchanged." Id. at *2.
Second, the notice letter "fail[ed] to clearly notify Lipsett about
the terms on which he could accept or decline the arbitration
provision." Id.
Third, the notice letter was ambiguous as to "whether the 2013???14
Agreement was an entirely 'new' deposit agreement or merely one
that amended Lipsett's prior agreements," creating confusion on the
part of a reasonable customer as to which of the opt-out provisions
set out in the documents would apply. Id.
The panel concluded: "In sum, the specific language of the 2013-14
materials does not permit existing accountholders like Lipsett to
clearly understand their options for rejecting arbitration. Under
the totality of the circumstances contained in this record,
therefore, we conclude that Lipsett has not assented to mandatory
arbitration under New York law." Id. [GN]
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Waden Sues Over Data Breach's Late Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
DODIE WADEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00260-CMC (D.S.C., January 17, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive and confidential personally identifiable
information and asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and for violations of the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
Despite having known about the data breach since May 2023, the
Notices of Security Incident were not sent to affected individuals
until on or around August 1, 2023--almost three months later.
Accordingly, the Defendant failed to provide timely notice to
Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach, says the suit.
Headquartered in Mayfield Village, OH, Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company provides insurance services for personal,
automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com
RECKITT BENCKISER: Scharon Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisol Scharon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00285 (D.N.J., January 17, 2024) seeks
to remedy Reckitt' deceptive marketing and labeling of certain
Mucinex branded cold medications as being effective decongestants
and asserts claims for breach of express warranties, fraud by
affirmative misrepresentation, fraud by negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligence, and for
violations of state consumer protection laws.
According to the complaint, the said medications contain
phenylephrine hydrochloride (PE), which is the sole active
ingredient listed as a decongestant. However, on September 12,
2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration publicly
declared that orally ingested PE is completely ineffective as a
nasal decongestant based on the weight of scientific evidence
presented to it.
For decades, Reckitt has advertised its Mucinex PE medicines as
comprehensive cold medicines that could treat or alleviate a wide
variety of symptoms such as fevers, aches, sore throats, coughs,
runny nose, and nasal congestion. These symptoms feature heavily in
the advertising and feature prominently on the products packaging
alongside the related active ingredients. However, Reckitt has
willfully ignored decades of scientific, industry, and regulatory
knowledge that PE is wholly ineffective as a nasal decongestant and
has insisted on this course of deceptive misrepresentation, says
the suit.
Headquartered in Parsippany, NJ, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
Inc. is a Delaware limited liability corporation that manufactures
and advertises numerous medications under its Mucinex brand. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Alex Lee, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
alee@caffertyclobes.com
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Shah Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
VISHAL SHAH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES and
SELECTQUOTE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02023 (D. Kan.,
January 17, 2024) seeks to address SelectQuote's improper and
illegal disclosure of consumers' personally identifiable
information and/or protected health information to Meta Platforms,
Inc. d/b/a Meta and other third parties via its website.
SelectQuote owns and controls www.selectquote.com, and it
intentionally installed Facebook Tracking Pixel on the its website
to surreptitiously duplicate and send users' private communications
to Facebook, the contents of which include Private Information and
protected PHI/individually identifiable medical information. In
addition to the Facebook Pixel, Defendant also installed and
implemented Facebook's Conversions Application Programming
Interface (API) on its Website servers. Conversions API tracks the
user's website interaction, including private information, records
and stores that information on the website owner's servers, and
then transmits the data to Facebook from the website owner's
servers, says the suit.
Headquartered in Overland Park, KS, SelectQuote Insurance Services
is a California corporation that employs approximately 4,186
individuals. The company's consolidated revenue for the fiscal year
of 2023 is over $1 billion. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
200 Westport Rd., P.O. Box 10090
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
mrathur@caffertyclobes.com
STATEBRIDGE CO: Faces Class Suit Over Delinquent Second Mortgages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that Home loan servicer Statebridge
Company is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly attempting
to illegally collect time-barred second mortgages.
The plaintiff, Corey Stepney, accuses the company of
misrepresentation and intimidation in its attempts to collect from
her a time-barred second mortgage loan.
The case, filed in Cook County Circuit Court on Jan. 26, alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against
Colorado-based Statebridge.
According to the complaint, Stepney obtained an "80/20" mortgage
loan secured by her home in 2005. The loan allowed borrowers with
subprime FICO scores to take out two loans simultaneously to
purchase or refinance a home: a first lien loan to typically cover
80% of the purchase price, and a second lien loan, which typically
equals 20% of the purchase price.
In 2023, Stepney received notice that servicing of her second
mortgage was being transferred from Veripro Solutions to
Statebridge Company LLC, according to the complaint. The lawsuit
arises from Statebridge's alleged subsequent attempts to collect on
this loan.
Stepney is represented in the action by attorneys Daniel A. Edelman
and Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin,
of Chicago. [GN]
STEEL HUGGERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conejo Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN CONEJO; CHRISTOPHER ASHMORE; JASON MACK; MIGUEL ACOSTA; and
JEFFREY MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NICHOLAS ("NIC") MALWITZ, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00232 (D. Colo., Jan. 25, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as construction
workers at the Defendant's metal fabrication and construction
company, Steel Huggers LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 961-7639
Email: penn@andersondodson.com
STERILIZATION SERVICES: Amends Suit Over Ethylene Oxide Emission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik, along with Co-Counsel Wampler, Carroll, Wilson &
Sanderson, PLLC, filed an Amended Complaint in a pending Class
Action lawsuit in the Shelby County, Tennessee State Court on
February 2, 2024, seeking compensation for chronic injuries
suffered by the South Memphis community due to exposure to the
toxic emissions from local medical device sterilization facility.
New to the Amended Complaint is a Medical Monitoring Claim that
would set a new precedent under Tennessee law and provide
comprehensive cancer screening and other preventative care to
thousands in the impacted area.
Since 1979, Sterilization Services of Tennessee -- located in a
dense residential area of South Memphis -- has been emitting
dangerous amounts of Ethylene Oxide into the air. Ethylene Oxide
has been a known human carcinogen for decades. As a result, the
surrounding community has been and continues to be at a vastly
increased risk of developing certain cancers (including breast
cancer, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and leukemia), serious
fertility issues, and birth injuries, among other devastating
health problems.
Sterilization Services of Tennessee's parent company, Altair
Engineering Inc., is a publicly traded multi-national corporation
headquartered in Michigan with over 572-million in reported revenue
in 2022 alone. Altair is also named as a Defendant in the Amended
Complaint, along with Vacudyne, Inc., which has historical ties to
Altair and operated the facility in the mid-1980s, according to EPA
records -- when the facility's emissions were among the highest
recorded, roughly 100x of the current and still dangerous levels.
To quote the Amended Complaint, "The children currently attending
these schools [within the toxic plume] and their families must be
provided access to medical screening, prevention, and treatment now
and likely for the remainder of their lives as a just and necessary
remedy to prevent readily avoidable deaths caused by the nearly
half-a-century of Defendants poisoning the air of South Memphis."
ABOUT NAPOLI SHKOLNIK:
Napoli Shkolnik is an international litigation firm representing
persons in class action lawsuits, complex commercial cases, and
victims of environmental contamination disasters, aviation
accidents, defective prescription drugs and medical devices,
asbestos-related illnesses, and other serious personal injury
matters.
Contacts
Media
Paul J. Napoli
pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
(516) 639-6909
Nevin Wisnoski
nwisnoski@NapoliLaw.com
(919) 374-1971 [GN]
STUBHUB INC: Alcaraz Sues Over Ticket Bait and Switch Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
LISA ALCARAZ; and BRIAN HONG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STUBHUB, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00427 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2024) alleges violation
of the California's Ticket Seller Law.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that StubHub owns and
operates StubHub.com, a marketplace where sports fans, concert
enthusiasts, and theatregoers can buy and sell tickets. To monetize
its platform, the Defendant collects a fee when each ticket is
sold.
The Defendant misrepresented the price it claims it can cause
tickets to be delivered to customers by a consistent amount. This
bait and switch is made even more deceptive by the fact that the
price increases only at the final checkout screen, after the
customer is put on a prominently displayed 10-minute shot clock to
review over a half dozen cluttered screens that inundate them with
colorfully distracting information, says the suit.
Even when customers reach the final checkout screen, the price
increase is not obvious and requires quick-witted memory and mental
math. In every screen before the final one, tickets costs are
displayed as "each" whereas on the final screen, they are
aggregated together. But customers can???t take too long on this
screen to determine by how much they are being cheated, because
when the clock runs out, they are kicked out and must begin the
whole process all over again. "Your time is up!," the suit
alleges.
STUBHUB, INC. is an American ticket exchange and resale company. It
provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports,
concerts, theater, and other live entertainment events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
Emily A. Horne, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
ehorne@bursor.com
THE MESSENGER: Faces Class Suit Over Workers' Abrupt Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Spangler, writing for Variety, reports that The Messenger got
shot. In the wake of its spectacular flameout, the ill-fated
digital news startup is the target of a lawsuit seeking
class-action status on behalf of its 300 ex-employees -- who were
terminated without notice -- which says the company is on the hook
for severance payments and benefits.
The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeks class-action certification. It
demands up to 60 days in unpaid wages, accrued vacation time,
healthcare insurance coverage and other benefits for sacked
employees of The Messenger; plaintiff's attorneys fees and legal
expenses; and "such other and further relief as this Court may deem
just and proper."
The suit was filed by Pilar Belendez-Desha, who was a senior
producer at The Messenger and previously a producer on Vice Media
Group's "Vice News Tonight," on behalf of the laid-off Messenger
employees. According to the complaint, The Messenger employees were
"terminated without cause" and were not provided with advanced
written notice of at least 60 days of the layoffs as required by
the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (and
without 90 days advance written notice as mandated by the New York
WARN Act).
Reps for The Messenger did not respond to email inquiries
requesting comment.
It's not clear if the lawsuit will be successful. For one thing,
the WARN Act includes a "faltering company" exception, which the
Labor Department explains is applicable when prior to a mass
layoff, "a company is actively seeking capital or business and
reasonably in good faith believes that advance notice would prevent
it from obtaining such capital or business" and that "this new
capital or business would allow the company to avoid or postpone a
shutdown for a reasonable period."
The complaint names as a defendant JAF Communications, doing
business as The Messenger, which was founded and led by chairman
and CEO Jimmy Finkelstein.
Finkelstein raised about $50 million for The Messenger, which
launched in May 2023. The Messenger touted itself as an outlet for
no-BS reporting with the tagline, "Your Source for Trusted and
Unbiased News." Former employees have alleged The Messenger was set
up as a content-aggregation farm, with staffers expected to post a
high volume of content to fuel website traffic -- which didn't
materialize as expected, leading to a critical cash crunch.
After The Messenger's funding ran low at the end of 2023, on Jan.
2, 2024, the company "abruptly" terminated approximately 20
employees, according to Belendez-Desha's suit. On Jan. 31, "the
remaining employees learned from a New York Times news item that
they were being terminated. Within minutes after the story broke,
The Messenger confirmed to the approximately 300 employees that
they were terminated effective immediately," the lawsuit said.
Finkelstein's final memo to Messenger staff, which was reviewed by
Variety, blamed "economic headwinds" buffeting the media industry
for the company's immediate shutdown.
"I am personally devastated to share that we have made the
painfully hard decision to shut down The Messenger, effective
immediately," Finkelstein wrote. "Over the past few weeks,
literally until earlier, we exhausted every option available and
have endeavored to raise sufficient capital to reach profitability.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to do so, which is why we
haven't shared the news with you until now. This is truly the last
thing I wanted, and I am deeply sorry." [GN]
TROPIC OIL: Property Not Accessible to Disabled, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DOUG LONGHINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TROPIC OIL COMPANY LLC; and PARKLAND
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20352-XXXX (Jan. 29,
2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint the Defendants denied the Plaintiff, a
mobility-impaired individual, access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and accommodations of the Defendants' Commercial
Property in violation of the ADA.
TROPIC OIL COMPANY LLC owns and operates commercial properties in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
Beverly Virues, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Court Dismisses Tuition Payments' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Bernard of Montana Kaimin reports that on Jan. 22, a jury
found the University of Montana was not responsible in a
class-action lawsuit for mishandling student tuition payments and
violating students' privacy.
The suit, first filed in 2016 and certified for class-action in
2019, involved UM's contract from 2010 to 2015 with Higher One, a
third-party company that outsourced students' financial aid and
tuition transfers.
Former students claimed they were overcharged extra fees when using
designated Higher One debit cards and that UM sharing personal
financial information violated their privacy. Around 39,000
students received debit cards from the company to make their
payments to the University.
The jury, however, found UM committed no wrongdoing because it did
not "fail to act in the best interest" of former students who
received loan refunds. The jury also found UM did not violate
privacy rights since Montana law states personal information from
educational records can be shared with contractors as long as the
company being contracted [Higher One] was providing an
institutional service for UM.
"UM is pleased with the results of this trial," Dave Kuntz, UM
spokesperson told the Missoulian.
Study finds Indigenous communities in Montana have highest suicide
rates
The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention ranked Montana as
having the third-worst suicide death rate out of all U.S. states in
2020, with 10% of all suicide deaths in the state from 2017 to 2021
occurring within Indigenous communities.
Indigenous people represent around 6.5% of the state's population,
but suicide rates remain high. The CDC finds non-Hispanic
Indigenous people have higher rates of suicide than any other
racial or ethnic group.
According to the Montana Free Press, this is because national
strategies for suicide prevention aren't sensitive to Indigenous
communities' values and culture. This, combined with a lack of
funding and resources for Indigenous people due to systemic
inequalities and issues, can hurt suicide prevention in
communities.
The higher rate and risk of suicide in Indigenous communities is a
complex issue. According to the National Alliance on Mental
Illness, many factors contribute to mental health issues, including
generational trauma, health issues and increased risks of poverty,
unemployment and homelessness.
UM has 613 self-identified Indigenous students, according to the
Fall 2023 census report.
If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis,
contact the Student Advocacy Resource Center at (406) 243-4429,
Curry Health Counseling at (406) 243-4712, or the national suicide
lifeline at 988; to reach the Native and Strong Lifeline press 4.
Proponents for abortion on the ballot file lawsuit against Attorney
General
Pro-choice advocates pushing to place abortion rights on the '24
ballot filed a lawsuit in the Montana Supreme Court after Attorney
General Austin Knudsen shut down the measure on Jan. 16.
Knudsen shut down the measure during the legal sufficiency review
this month, which determines what measures can go on the November
ballot.
Attorneys for the group argue Knudsen's assertion that the proposal
"limits the ability of the state to provide for public health and
safety" and "logrolls multiple distinct political choices into a
single initiative" is not true.
Instead, the attorneys argue Constitutional Initiative 14 focuses
solely on abortion in a "comprehensive way: establishing and
outlining the right, then securing it from government
interference," according to the lawsuit.
If voters approved protecting the right to abortion in Montana, it
would add the right specifically to the Montana Constitution,
preventing government regulation and interference with abortion.
Montana Supreme Court denies State's request to pause Held v.
Montana climate decision
The Montana Supreme Court rejected state officials' request to
pause the ruling in Held v. Montana, which found the state in
violation of Montana's constitutional right to a clean and healthy
environment, on Jan. 16.
The case, decided by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley last August,
included 16 young plaintiffs, some University of Montana students.
Despite the state asking for a pause in the case to prepare an
appeal, the Supreme Court ruled 5-2 against, saying Judge Seeley
didn't abuse the court's power, nor did the state "provide good
cause to disturb its ruling," according to court documents.
The state argued the ruling should clarify how to analyze
greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts in construction
projects because it can be difficult to determine how much they are
harming the environment.
This is the second time the state has asked for a pause, following
last month's request from Gov. Greg Gianforte and several state
departments, including environmental quality, transportation and
natural resources and conservation. [GN]
US FERTILITY: Settles Patient Info Data Breach Suit for $5.75M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that US Fertility LLC agreed to pay $5.75
million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming that it failed
to protect patient information from a 2020 data breach.
The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information
and/or protected health information was compromised in the US
Fertility data breach announced in November 2020.
According to the data breach class action lawsuit, US Fertility's
negligence allowed hackers to access its systems and steal the
medical and financial information of nearly 900,000 patients.
Plaintiffs claim US Fertility could have prevented the breach by
taking reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect patient data.
US Fertility LLC is a national network of fertility clinics with
over 100 locations around the country.
US Fertility hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a $5.75
million settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment of $50, regardless of their experiences following the data
breach. Class members whose information was obtained from a
fertility clinic in California will receive an additional $200.
These payment amounts may be increased or decreased depending on
the number of valid claims filed.
Class members who experienced lost time protecting their
information or dealing with fraud and identity theft following the
US Fertility data breach can receive lost-time payments. The
settlement compensates up to four hours of lost time at a rate of
$25 per hour, for a maximum lost-time payment of $100.
The settlement also provides up to $15,000 in reimbursement of
out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach. Class members
could claim a wide range of documented losses, including identity
theft, fraudulent charges, credit expenses, professional fees and
more.
Class members who claim multiple types of benefits from the
settlement can receive no more than $15,000 in total, even if they
claim more than $15,000 in damages.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 20, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
April 18, 2024.
Class members must submit a valid claim form by March 19, 2024, to
receive settlement benefits.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information and/or protected health
information was compromised in the US Fertility data breach
announced in November 2020.
Potential Award
$15,000
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, notices, account statements, police reports, IRS
documents, FTC reports, professional invoices, travel details and
other documentation of data breach-related expenses.
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
03/19/2024
Case Name
In re: US Fertility LLC Data Security Litigation, Case No.
8:21-cv-00299-PJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland
Final Hearing
04/18/2024
Settlement Website
USFDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
USF Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
Telephone: (844) 755-6574
Class Counsel
John A Yanchunis
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL
Telephone: (813) 275-5272
Gayle M Blatt
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
120 Birmingham Dr #120e
Cardiff, CA 92007
Telephone: (760) 743-8448
Hassan A Zavareei
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd. - Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
David M Berger
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (800) 254-9493
Nikoletta S Mendrinos
MURPHY FALCON & MURPHY
1 South St Ste 3000
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 881-5269
Defense Counsel
Claudia D McCarron
Paulyne Gardner
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
426 W Lancaster Ave
Devon, PA 19333
Telephone: (267) 930-4770 [GN]
WINTER DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Correa Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CORREA; and AGUSTIN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENITO COLUNGA; BENITO
COLUNGA, JR.; and WINTER DRYWALL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00278 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 24, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Correa was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker.
WINTER DRYWALL LLC is a specialty contractor that serves the
houston, tx area and specializes in plaster and gypsum board, wood
framing, demolition, rough carpentry, concrete, painting and
coatings. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
WW INTERNATIONAL: Brookshier Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------
REGINA BROOKSHIER; and LINDA SAYERS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WW INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00589 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024)
is a class action suit brought against the Defendant for aiding,
agreeing with, employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the
wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its
website, weightwatchers.com, in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Defendant aids, agrees with, procures, or otherwise enables at
least two third-party service providers to collect information from
visitors to its Website: TikTok Ltd. ("TikTok") and Alphabet, Inc.
("Google") (collectively, the "Third Parties").
The nature of the Third Parties' licensing agreements with the
Defendant are such that Defendant "aids, agrees with, employs, or
conspires" to permit the Third Parties to read, attempt to read, to
learn, and to use the confidential communications of Website
visitors without prior consent, thus violating the CIPA, says the
suit.
WW INTERNATIONAL, INC. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions, as well as
gives their members guidance and access to a supportive community
to help enable them for healthy habits. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: jwilner@bursor.com
[*] Real Estate Brokerages in Canada Sued Over Inflated Commissions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shantae Campbell, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
scope of a legal challenge alleging price fixing within the
residential real estate industry has been widened to include all
regions of Canada because of the second class-action lawsuit.
The new statement of claim was officially filed in the Federal
Court on Jan. 19, according to Kalloghlian Myers Limited Liability
Partnership (LLP), the law firm that is pursuing the claim.
The new claim contends that real estate brokerages nationwide --
with the exclusion of the Greater Toronto Area -- engaged in
illicit practices, leading to unjustifiable increases in
residential real estate commissions. Additionally, it alleges the
Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and local real estate
boards across the country helped facilitate these alleged
violations.
It follows an original class-action lawsuit involving brokerages in
the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)
Central to the case is a regulation compelling home sellers using
the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) to offer a commission to the
buyer's real estate brokerage. The lawsuit contends that this rule,
wherein sellers foot the bill for buyer brokerage services, stifles
competition in the buyer brokerage side of the market, resulting in
elevated commissions within an already fiercely competitive
market.
In the legal filing, the plaintiff, Kevin McFall of Milton, Ont.,
says he enlisted representation from Royal LePage Meadowtowne
Realty, which concurrently acted on behalf of the buyer in the
transaction.
"For the sale of his residential real estate property, Mr. McFall
paid a total commission of five per cent, including a commission of
2.5 per cent plus HST to the buyer brokerage," court documents
said.
"For Canadians, these commission expenses are a very substantial
cost on the sale of a home and they erode people's savings," Paul
Bates of Bates Barristers P.C., a legal professional involved in
the suit against CREA, said.
"The contention in both cases, including the recently filed case
for all the geographies outside the GTA is that the buyer broker
commission should not be forcibly taken out of the seller's sale
proceeds, and that commission should be negotiated by the buyer
broker with the buyer. And in that event, the commission would be
far far less than it has," Bates said.
John Syme of John Syme Law, another lawyer working on the case,
said a favourable outcome could lead to compensation and
alterations in the regulations overseeing commission payments.
In both cases, the legal teams are seeking compensation, not only
for their clients but also for individuals who have bought
residential real estate since 2010.
"The action, if successful, would result in property sellers who
were forced to pay buyers brokers commissions being compensated,"
Syme said. "In addition, going forward, it is likely that there
would be changes to the rules which govern the payment of
commissions."
Syme said that a change to the rules might involve altering the
current mandate where real estate sellers are obligated to cover
the costs of services utilized by buyers.
According to Bates, the GTA case is anticipated to reach a
resolution within the next two to three years but the "scheduling
is an ongoing endeavour."
"The outside GTA case should conclude a couple of years after,"
Bates said.
In September, when the Federal Court green-lit the class-action
lawsuit against the GTA real estate industry, the Canadian Real
Estate Association issued a statement.
"We continue to believe the claims against CREA and other
defendants are without merit, and we will continue to defend our
members in this case," it said at the time. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. 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 ***