/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***