/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 19, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 36 Headlines 2K GAMES: Fights Class Action Over Lost Virtual Currency AEROTEK AVIATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amesty Alleges ALBERTA: Faces Suit Over Public Health Orders During Pandemic AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Prime Video's New Ad Tier AMAZON.COM: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Dates Pending Ruling AMC NETWORKS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $3.8M AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Colorado Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ANONG LLC: Operates Illegal "Rent-A-Tribe" Payday Loan Scheme ARROWHEAD REGIONAL: Fields Files Suit in D. Minnesota ATI RESTORATION: Marin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BANCO SANTANDER: U.S. Appeals Court Revives Bondholder Class Action BETTENDORF, IA: Second Bid to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd BIOVIE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud BLUE CROSS: Bid to Stay Pending Appeal Granted in C.P. Class Suit BLUE SHIELD: Hit With Class Action Over May 2023 Data Breach BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Cir. BRIGHT HORIZONS: Dismissal Denied; Rutter Suit Moved to State Court BRINKER INT'L: Steinmetz Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery Denied BROOGE ENERGY: White Sues Over Securities Law Breaches BSH HOME: Class Settlement in Peterson Suit Has Prelim. Approval BURBERRY LIMITED: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois BYREDO USA INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Balsamo Suit Transferred to D. Nevada CAIN & ASSOCIATES: Class Cert Filing in Sake Modified to April 15 CALIFORNIA AMMONIA: Mesquita Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Class Cert Bid in Gonzales Due Oct. 11 CAPITAL HEALTH: Graycar Files Suit in D. New Jersey CAREFIRST INC: Court to Consider Class Cert Bid in Attias Suit CASSAVA SCIENCES: Baker Sues Over Drop in Share Price CHARLESTON AREA: Class Certification Bid in Strickland Due May 6 CHILDREN'S PLACE: Johnson Fistel Discloses Class Action Lawsuit CIRCLE K STORES: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certifcation Order CIRCLE K: Faces TCPA Class Suit Over Slurpee Promotional Text CLAYTON COUNTY SCHOOL: Henry Sues Over Non-Payment of Wages Earned COMPLIANCE STAFFING: Underpays Workers in Colorado, Suit Says D-WAVE QUANTUM: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims D.R. HORTON: Homeowners Sue Over Real Estate Property Management DEL VALLE RODRIGUEZ: Court Refuses to Toss Velez-Ortiz FDCPA Suit DRESSER LLC: Court Enters Lone Pine Order in D&J Investments Suit ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beauchane Says FCA US: Diaz Files 3rd Cir. Appeal in Consumer Class Suit FEDEX GROUND: Court Allows Sixteen Drivers to Intervene in a Suit FG GROUP: Monteverde Continues to Investigate Securities Violations FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: Plan to Settle 401(k) Fund Swap Class Action FIVE BELOW: Court Refuses Renewal of Bid to Dismiss Krawitz Suit FIVE KEYS SCHOOLS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations FUJIFILM NORTH: S.D.N.Y. Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Inong Suit HERSHEY CO: S.D. California Narrows Claims in Grausz Consumer Suit HILL'S PET: Misrepresents Grain-Free Dog Food Products, Suit Says INFINITY MANAGEMENT: Manager 'Prey' on Tenants, Lawsuit Claims JAF COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Hit with Class Action Over Cyberattack KROGER CO: Garland and Jacobs Sue Over Misleading Product Labeling LA PLACE: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit LABORATORY CORP: Denies Access to Check-in Kiosks, Suit Says LOANDEPOT INC: Massaro and Taylor-Jones Sue Over Data Breach MANITOBA: Chief Proposes Class Suit Over Treaty Agreements MARYMOUND GROUP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Extreme Repeated Abuse MINDGEEK USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sex-Trafficking Ventures MINNESOTA: Daywitt Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Cir. MOOMOO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Biometric Collection NEW YORK AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andina Alleges NISSAN MOTOR: Proposed Wage Class Action Appeal Tossed OSWEGO COUNTY, NY: Parker Files Appeal in Suit v. Sheriff PROMEDICA EMPLOYMENT: Williams Suit Moved to C.D. California READING INTERNATIONAL: Berryman Balks at Unfair Ticket Price Scheme RENTGROW INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition ROBINSON MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Archer Alleges ROMEO POWER: Court Certifies Securities Suit, $14.9M Deal Proposed SCHNADER HARRISON: Faces Class Suit Over Mishandled Pension Plans SEATGEEK INC: Faces Suit Over Breach of Ticket Price Listings SENIOR LIFE: Harris et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls SOLACIUM HOLDINGS: Spindel Suit Moved to N.D. California TAMARA LICH: Convoy Organizers Want Police Board to Pay in Suit TATA CONSULTANCY: Ross Suit Moved to C.D. California TETRA TECH: Plaintiff Reaches Settlement in Securities Class Suit TGC LLC: Huang et al. Sue Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info TJX COMPANIES: Bourgeois Appeals Case Dismissal Order to 1st Cir. TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over False Cost Savings of Maintenance Plans TUBI INC: Loses Bid to Force Privacy Class Action to Arbitration VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: High Court Denies Appeal in Takata Airbag Suit W.E. WANG CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges WENDY'S COMPANY: Bazzett Sues Over Violation of PUMP Act ZEROCARB INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Crosson Alleges [*] District Court Dismisses FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing [*] Fintech Loan Firm Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Loan Scheme [*] Qualicum Beach File Suit Against Fossil Fuel Firms in Canada ********* 2K GAMES: Fights Class Action Over Lost Virtual Currency -------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that 2K Games is asking a federal judge to throw out a proposed class action lawsuit that complains players lose their virtual currency when old versions of games are retired. Becca Wahlquist of Kelley, Drye & Warren submitted a motion to dismiss Feb. 2 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge James Donato is presiding over the case. The lawsuit was filed late last year by J.A., a minor represented by his mother, against 2K Games and Take Two Interactive Software. The suit claims the defendants publish new versions of their sports games and that those who own the older version of the game lose their access to online play and use of the game's online features, plus their virtual currency purchased to increase the abilities of players. Gamers lose their access to the funds that remain in the game wallets that can't be transferred to another game or redeemed, the suit says. It further alleges the defendants fail to give any warning that the gamers' currency will be destroyed, refuse to refund gamers, and that the defendants' actions are deceptive and unfair. 2K says the case makes a "novel argument." "J.A. alleges that when the online game environment for an older game is retired, Defendants are committing conversion, theft and an unfair business practice because players would no longer be able to use any VC purchased for use in the online version of the game," the motion says. "However, Defendants are allowed to make business decisions about how their games operate and in-game VC is a thing that exists solely within the confines of each of those games. VC is not Plaintiff's property: instead, in-game VC are fictions created by game publishers, subject to the publishers' terms of service and user agreements." The motion says the plaintiff has not identified any argument that 2K must transfer the VC for use in other games and points to the Terms of Service and End User License Agreement to which gamers agree. The EULA says VC is non-transferable. [GN] AEROTEK AVIATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amesty Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER AMESTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEROTEK AVIATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00341-MJM (D. Md., Feb. 2, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Amesty was employed by the Defendant as an aircraft mechanic. AEROTEK AVIATION, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of transportation equipment and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: tjones@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ALBERTA: Faces Suit Over Public Health Orders During Pandemic ------------------------------------------------------------- bridgecitynews.ca reports that a class action lawsuit is being launched against the Alberta government on behalf of business owners in the province. Those who faced operational restrictions or were forced to close their doors due to public health orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit follows the recent Ingram decision by the courts which declared that all of Dr. Deena Hinshaw's Public Health Orders were deemed illegal. The lawsuit is being spearheaded by Foothills, Alberta lawyer Jeffrey Rath. He shared the details with BCN's Hal Roberts. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Prime Video's New Ad Tier ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Chelin, writing for The Wrap, reports that Prime Video subscribers are pushing back against the Amazon-owned streamer, arguing that they have been misled following its recent move to charge an extra fee in order to watch content on the platform without ads. On Jan. 29, Prime Video rolled out its ad-supported tier as the default for all subscribers, with those who want an ad-free experience being charged an additional $2.99 per month. Currently, Amazon Prime, which includes Prime Video, costs $14.99 per month or $139 a year. A membership that only includes Prime Video and none of the company's shipping benefits costs $8.99 a month. A class-action lawsuit filed in California on Friday claims that the service's move is "unfair," "deceptive" and "unlawful," accusing it of committing breach of contract and violating consumer protection laws in the state for consumers who saw their subscription terms change due to the pivot. Instead of receiving a subscription that included ad-free streaming of TV shows and movies, they received something worth less. They cannot enjoy ad-free streaming unless they pay an extra $2.99/month," the suit states. "Thus, Amazon's false advertisements harm consumers by depriving them of the reasonable expectations to which they are entitled." The class action suit is seeking at least $5 million and a court order barring Amazon from engaging in further deceptive conduct on behalf of users who subscribed to Prime prior to Dec. 28, 2023. A Prime Video spokesperson did not immediately return TheWrap's request for comment. During Amazon's fourth quarter earnings call, CEO Andy Jassy expressed optimism that Prime Video would become a "large and profitable business," adding that it intends to continue investing in "compelling and exclusive content" such as "Thursday Night Football" and "Lord of The Rings." "With the addition of ads on Prime Video, we'll be able to continue investing meaningfully in content over time," he added. The latest legal action follows a separate suit from the Federal Trade Commission last year, which accused Amazon of making it difficult for consumers to unsubscribe to their Prime subscriptions by using a "manipulative" and "coercive" interface. [GN] AMAZON.COM: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Dates Pending Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM KYDC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order vacating deadlines pending class certification ruling. Deadline Current Date Defendants' Response to the Motion for Feb. 5, 2024 Class Certification, including any expert reports in opposition to class certification. Reports from expert witness (other than Feb. 6, 2024 class certification-specific experts) under FRCP 26(a)(2) due Plaintiffs' Reply to the Motion for March 4, 2024 Class Certification, including any rebuttal expert reports Fact discovery completed April 8, 2024 Agreed pretrial order due August 21, 2024 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire August 21, 2024 questions, and proposed jury instructions: On April 10, 2023, the Court issued a Case Scheduling Order. On July 20, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulated motion to extend certain class certification related deadlines. On Sept. 5, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulated motion to extend certain class certification-related deadlines and to set a briefing schedule for the expedited joint motion procedure under LCR 37. On Oct. 13, 2023, while the LCR 37 submissions were pending before the Court, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On Oct. 19, 2023, the Court entered the Order on Rule 37 Submissions granting the parties' LCR 37 submissions in part and denying in part. On Nov. 22, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulated motion to supplement Plaintiffs' class certification motion and to extend class certification-related deadlines. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties motion dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A3Rpy1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Kalish, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-826-5354 E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com - and - Brian J. Lawler, Esq. PILOT LAW, P.C. 4632 Mt. Gaywas Dr. San Diego, CA 92117 Telephone: (619) 255-2398 E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com - and - Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Kevin L. Wilson, Esq. KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC 3110 Horton Avenue Louisville, KY 40220 Telephone: 502-276-5050 Email: kevin@klwilsonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew E. Moriarty, Esq. Heather L. Shook, Esq. Shannon McDermott, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: AMoriarty@perkinscoie.com HShook@perkinscoie.com SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com - and - Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. Brian A. Richman, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Facsimile: (202) 467-0539 E-mail: JSchwartz@gibsondunn.com BRichman@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com AMC NETWORKS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $3.8M ----------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that AMC agreed to pay $8.3 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it violated federal privacy laws by tracking users on its website and sharing that information with third parties. The settlement benefits consumers who watched videos through AMC+, Shudder, Acorn TV, ALLBLK, SundanceNow and/or HIDIVE services on an online website, mobile app or streaming service controlled by AMC between Jan. 18, 2021, and Jan. 10, 2024. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AMC used Meta Pixel tracking on its website to track user activity and share that information with third parties without their consent. These privacy violations allegedly violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). AMC+ is AMC's streaming platform that bundles several different services into one. AMC hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a $8.3 million settlement to resolve the privacy class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Payments will vary depending on the number of valid claims filed. No payment estimates are available at this time. All class members who file a valid claim will also receive a one-week digital subscription to the AMC+ streaming service. In addition to this recovery, AMC will make changes to its website tracking and will suspend, remove or modify its use of Meta Pixel in order to align with the VPPA. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 9, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May 16, 2024. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 16, 2024. Who's Eligible Consumers who watched videos through AMC+, Shudder, Acorn TV, ALLBLK, SundanceNow and/or HIDIVE services on an online website, mobile app or streaming service controlled by AMC between Jan. 18, 2021, and Jan. 10, 2024. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Email address 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 04/09/2024 Case Name Vela, et al. v. AMC Networks Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02524-ALC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 05/16/2024 Settlement Website AMCVPPASettlement.com Claims Administrator AMC VPPA Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 888-871-5788 Class Counsel Douglas Cuthbertson LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Hank Bates CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC Michael Reese REESE LLP Kevin Laukaitis LAUKAITIS LAW LLC Defense Counsel Mark Melodia William Farley Martin Kurkin Hilary Lane Rachel Agius HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP[GN] AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Colorado Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Deicy Morales Colorado, and other similarly situated employees v. AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY INC., d/b/a AU PAIR IN AMERICA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00872 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 31, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance ("CMWO") for Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff the minimum wage in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL, and the CMWO; unlawful deductions for room and board under the FLSA; and failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL, and the CMWO. From February 2022 to September 2022, the Plaintiff was paid roughly $200 per week and worked an average of 45 hours per week. The Plaintiff was never paid at the overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant made unlawful deductions from the Plaintiff's pay. As a result, the Plaintiff's weekly payment of $200 resulted in an average hourly wage for the Plaintiff that was below the minimum wage mandated by the FLSA, IMWL, and CMWO. The Defendant's business model is twofold. First, it persuades host families to pay thousands of dollars directly to it, in exchange for Defendant's recruitment, placement, and ongoing mediation and social support of an au pair who can meet the host family's childcare needs. Second, it relies on the systemic underpayment of au pairs to maximize those profits. While legally required to follow federal, state, and local wage laws, Defendant provides an unlawful wage in its employment agreement, which is drafted by Defendant and signed by the host family and au pair. The wages paid to the Plaintiff on its face violated federal, state, and local wage laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was recruited by the Defendant and entered the U.S. as an au pair, where she worked in Chicago for a family as a full-time childcare worker from February 2022 to September 2022. The Defendant employs in-home childcare workers ("au pairs") who work in the United States on J-1 au pair visas – specialized visas provided to foreign nationals to come to the United States from numerous countries to work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Garcia, Esq. Dolores Ayala, Esq. LEGAL AID CHICAGO 120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 347-8350 Email: jgarcia@legalaidchicago.org dayala@legalaidchicago.org ANONG LLC: Operates Illegal "Rent-A-Tribe" Payday Loan Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that the entities behind AvailBlue.com face a proposed class action over an alleged "rent-a-tribe" scheme whereby the online lender has supposedly issued to Illinois residents payday loans with unlawfully high interest rates. The 22-page lawsuit says that defendants Anong LLC -- which does business as AvailBlue -- and parent company LDF Holdings, LLC claim to be owned by the federally recognized Lac du Flambeau (LDF) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a small Native American tribe based in rural Wisconsin. However, the suit alleges that the companies are, in fact, "fraudulently hiding behind tribal sovereign immunity" in order to duck state usury laws. Under state law, AvailBlue is prohibited from making loans to Illinois consumers at interest rates that exceed nine percent, as it has never held a bank or credit union charter or been issued a lending license by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the filing relays. Nevertheless, the online lender has extended loans to consumers at interest rates that exceed 500 percent, the complaint contends. As the suit tells it, the "tribal lending entity is simply a facade for an illegal lending scheme" whereby the non-tribal lenders pay just a fraction of the revenues to the cooperating tribe in exchange for the use of their name. The case also names as defendants LDF Holdings president Jessi Lee Phillips Lorenzo and two AvailBlue affiliates, Mark Koetting and Mainspring Management, LLC. Mainspring executive Rick A. Gwynne II is also included in the lawsuit. The lawsuit looks to represent: "(a) [All] individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom Defendants made loans at more than 36% interest (c) which loans are still outstanding or have been outstanding at any time during the 3 years prior to the filing of this action;" "(a) [All] individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom Defendants made loans at more than 9% interest (c) which loans are still outstanding, or were outstanding on a date more than two years prior to the filing of this action;" and "(a) [All] persons (b) with Illinois addresses, as shown by the loan documents, (c) to whom a loan was made in the name of Avail Blue (d) which loan was made on or after a date four years prior to the filing of suit."[GN] ARROWHEAD REGIONAL: Fields Files Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium. The case is styled as Klowie Fields, Ryan O'Connell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium, Case No. 0:24-cv-00249 (D. Minn., Jan. 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Arrowhead Regional Computing Consortium -- https://www.arcc.org/ -- has a to provide services, deliver training, and promote innovation to support our regions school districts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsey LaBelle Larson, Esq. Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 484-8599 Email: llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com nprosser@hjlawfirm.com ATI RESTORATION: Marin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATI Restoration, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luis Marin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ATI Restoration, LLC, et al., Case No. 23CV013733 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 19, 2023). ATI -- https://atirestoration.com/ -- is a full-service disaster recovery firm.[BN] BANCO SANTANDER: U.S. Appeals Court Revives Bondholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that a U.S. federal appeals court revived an investor class action accusing the Mexican branches of several multinational banks of manipulating the prices of billions of dollars' worth of Mexican government bonds in the United States. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the banks must face the investors' claims for now, finding that the alleged price-fixing had enough connection to New York to maintain the case in the United States. The banks "chose to take advantage of New York's market and laws," the three-judge panel ruling said. "So they can't complain." A federal judge in Manhattan had dismissed the antitrust lawsuit in 2020, finding the price-fixing claims concerned conduct occurring solely in Mexico and therefore fell beyond the reach of U.S. courts. Some of the banks named as defendants include Banco Santander Mexico, HSBC Mexico, Bank of America Mexico and Deutsche Bank Mexico. Representatives from the banks did not immediately respond to requests for comment or declined to comment. Investors in the proposed class action include the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and others who claimed they paid artificially inflated prices for Mexican government bonds between 2006 and 2017. The 2018 case initially included U.S. affiliates of the banks and New York-based brokers as defendants, but the lawsuit was narrowed following an earlier ruling. The investors argued in the appeal that their "complaint was replete with factual allegations showing that defendants intentionally fixed the prices" of Mexican government bonds in the United States. The banks countered that the U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over an alleged price-fixing conspiracy "carried out in Mexico — by Mexican banks purportedly manipulating the market for Mexican debt securities through a handful of Mexico-based individual traders." The case is In re: Mexican Government Bonds Litigation, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-2039. For plaintiffs: Margaret MacLean of Lowey Dannenberg For defendants: Boris Bershteyn of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. [GN] BETTENDORF, IA: Second Bid to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shipley et al v. City of Bettendorf, Iowa, Case No. 3:22-cv-00047 (S.D. Iowa, Filed Aug. 09, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger entered an order granting second joint motion to extend class certification deadlines. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is extended to Feb. 19, 2024, and Defendant's deadline to file any Resistance to the Motion for Class Certification is extended to March 20, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bettendorf is located on the eastern border of Iowa where the Mississippi River meets Interstate 80.[CC] BIOVIE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in BioVie Inc. ("BioVie" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BIVI) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of BioVie investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August 5, 2021 and November 29, 2023. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/biovie-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=66772&wire=4 BIVI investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) BioVie was not conducting proper oversight of its Phase 3 clinical trial; (2) the COVID-19 pandemic significantly and negatively impacted the Company's ability to adequately conduct proper oversight of the Phase 3 clinical trial; (3) due to lack of proper oversight and reliance on contract research organizations, the data from defendants' Phase 3 clinical trial faced a greater risk of being unreliable and that the majority of patients would have to be excluded from the clinical trial; (4) as a result of the significant exclusions from the trial results, the Phase 3 clinical trial would fail to meet its primary endpoints; and (5) statements about BioVie's business, operations, prospects, and compliance with current good clinical practices were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in BioVie during the relevant time frame, you have until March 19, 2024 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] BLUE CROSS: Bid to Stay Pending Appeal Granted in C.P. Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C. P., by and through his parents, Patricia Pritchard and Nolle Pritchard, S.L., by and through her parents, S.R. and R.L.; EMMETT JONES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; and PATRICIA PRITCHARD, individually, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 3:20-cv-06145-RJB (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Bryan entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay pending appeal and setting other deadlines: -- Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal is granted. -- A bond IS waived. -- The portion of the Dec. 19, 2023 supplemental order requiring the parties' counsel to prepare proposed class notices is stricken, to be reordered, if appropriate, after the appeal is complete. The named Plaintiffs' claims for individual damages are denied without prejudice, subject to their ability to seek such relief should class certification be reversed on appeal. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for an award of representative service awards is denied without prejudice. Blue Cross is a health insurer in Illinois, offering group and individual health insurance coverage, A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9gY6Ut at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE SHIELD: Hit With Class Action Over May 2023 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that California Physicians' Service, which does business as Blue Shield of California, faces a proposed class action over a May 2023 data breach that exposed health plan members' and beneficiaries' private information to hackers. The 28-page lawsuit says the incident occurred on May 28 and May 31, 2023, when a ransomware gang gained unauthorized access to files held by co-defendant MESVision, a company that manages vision benefits for many Blue Shield members and beneficiaries. According to the case, these files were compromised during a widespread attack against MOVEit, a popular file transfer platform used by MESVision. The complaint claims the cyberattack has affected more than 600,000 individuals, exposing private data such as their names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, group ID numbers, subscriber ID numbers and patient ID numbers. The suit adds that the compromised information also includes vision providers' names, vision claims numbers, vision-related treatment and diagnosis data, and treatment cost details. The data breach lawsuit attributes the incident to the defendants' alleged failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity measures. In particular, Blue Shield could have prevented the cyberattack had it properly audited its vendors' security practices or monitored their systems for unusual activity, the suit contends. Per the filing, the defendants' failure to safeguard patients' private information has exposed them to a "heightened" risk of identity theft and fraud that will likely persist for years. "[The defendants] knew or should have known that plaintiff [sic] and class members' personal information was an attractive target for cyber thieves, particularly in light of data breaches experienced by themselves and their vendors, as well as other entities around the United States," the complaint says. To add insult to injury, Blue Shield has fallen victim to at least 11 additional data breaches in the past decade, the case points out. Although MESVision claims to have discovered the breach on August 23, 2023, it waited 11 weeks to notify potentially impacted members and beneficiaries on November 14, the suit says. Blue Shield also kept victims in the dark until mid-November, despite admitting in an online notice that it learned of the attack on September 1, 2023, the case shares. The complaint alleges that compared to other companies affected by the MOVEit cyberattack, both defendants took far longer to detect and remediate the security vulnerability in MESVision's file transfer software. "[O]ther entities impacted by the vulnerability detected unusual activity and took action as early as May. And many other entities began investigating whether their customers' data had been impacted immediately following the announcement of the Vulnerability as early as May 31. Defendants' failure to timely detect and remediate the Data Breach demonstrates both companies lacked adequate security measures and cybersecurity infrastructure." The lawsuit looks to represent Blue Shield members and beneficiaries in California whose personal information was in MESVision's electronic information systems and was compromised as a result of the data breach. [GN] BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs ALAN THOMAS OMORI, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 11, 2024 and Judgment dated Jan. 17, 2024 entered in the lawsuit entitled ALAN THOMAS OMORI and LINFEI YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11021-NMG, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. The case arises from the retention by Brandeis University of the full amount of tuition and fees collected from students for the Spring, 2020 semester despite the closing of its on-campus facilities and conversion to online learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs assert that the failure of Brandeis to reimburse students for the alleged inferior value of online education, as well as for certain fees, constitutes breach of contract and unjust enrichment. At the beginning of the Spring, 2020 academic term, plaintiffs were enrolled as full-time undergraduate students at Brandeis, a private university in Waltham, Massachusetts. The students had registered and paid for in-person courses, purportedly expecting to receive access to on-campus instruction, facilities and experience. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Brandeis provided its students with an on-campus, in-person educational experience with only a few online graduate courses. On March 11, 2020, however, Brandeis announced that all its classes would be conducted in an online format due to the spread of the novel coronavirus. On Jan. 11, 2024, the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order allowing the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Defendant had argued that Mass. St, c. 28 Section 80(b) is not special legislation because it confers a benefit on a large class of educational institutions and not individual persons and that even if Section 80(b) is special legislation, there are rational policies that justify its enactment. On Jan. 17, Judge Gorton entered Judgment accordingly. The appellate case is captioned as Omori, et al. v. Brandeis University, Case No. 24-1084, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Jan. 25, 2024.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ALAN THOMAS OMORI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann St Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave., Ste 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Daniel John Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL & SHAPIRO LLP 455 N Cityfront Plaza Dr., Ste 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 - and - Richard E. Levine, Esq. STANZLER LEVINE LLC 37 Walnut St., Ste 200 Wellesley, MA 02481 Telephone: (617) 482-3198 Defendant-Appellee BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY is represented by: Marina Eudjienii Lev, Esq. Shon Morgan, Esq. Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 865 S Figueroa St., 10th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90017-0000 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 - and - Alexander Hale Loomis, Esq. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 111 Huntington Ave., Ste 520 Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (617) 712-7100 BRIGHT HORIZONS: Dismissal Denied; Rutter Suit Moved to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled CHELSEA RUTTER, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00233-KKE (W.D. Wash.), Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order denying motion to dismiss and remanding case to state court. The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc.'s motion to dismiss. Judge Evanson denies Bright Horizons' motion, and remands the lawsuit to King County Superior Court. Bright Horizons runs a network of more than 650 early education and childcare centers across the United States. Plaintiff Chelsea Rutter was employed as a teacher by Bright Horizons in Seattle from approximately April 2019 to May 2021. She alleges she was hired to work at the Interbay center, and did so until March 2020, when Bright Horizons temporarily closed many of its childcare centers because of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the closure, Rutter says she worked as a babysitter for client families she knew from the Interbay location. She further says that Bright Horizons subsequently required Rutter to work at a different Bright Horizons center, farther from her home, in an effort to prevent her from continuing to babysit for the Interbay client families. Bright Horizons' enrollment contract with its client families provides if a staff member leaves its employment to work for a client family within six (6) months of his or her departure; the client family agrees to pay a placement fee of $5,000 (hereafter "placement fee provision"). Rutter alleges that she knew the families for whom she was providing care would likely not be able to hire her for permanent positions because of the placement fee provision. She left her employment with Bright Horizons in May 2021, though does not allege what caused her departure. Ms. Rutter filed this putative class action against Bright Horizons in state court, alleging the placement fee provision violates Washington's Noncompetition Covenants statute and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). Bright Horizons subsequently removed the case to this Court. She alleges the placement fee provision both "restrained" her ability to obtain employment directly with Bright Horizons client families and had the effect of suppressing her wages by reducing her bargaining power. Bright Horizons moved to dismiss Rutter's complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court heard oral argument on the motion on Jan. 9, 2024. At the hearing, the Court raised the issue of whether Rutter had adequately pleaded Article III standing sufficient to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Upon consideration of the parties' briefing and argument, the Court concludes that Rutter has not adequately pleaded an injury, and as such, the Court lacks jurisdiction over her claims. Judge Evanson finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged an injury under Washington's Noncompetition Covenants statute. The Court need not reach whether the placement fee provision violates Washington law, as Rutter has not adequately alleged a concrete, non-hypothetical injury sufficient to establish Article III standing in this Court. To the contrary, Rutter's alleged injuries are entirely hypothetical. Judge Evanson also finds that Rutter has not alleged an injury arising under the CPA. Her CPA claim suffers from the same deficiency. She alleges the placement fee provision constitutes a prohibited unfair or deceptive practice because it was not disclosed to her before she accepted employment. She alleges she suffered injury because she "was paid less than she would have been" absent the placement fee provision. But Rutter alleges no facts in support of this claim. While generally claiming the placement fee provision suppressed her wages or reduced her bargaining power, Judge Evanson says Rutter does not allege that she ever sought an increase in her wages from Bright Horizons and was turned down. She likewise fails to allege that she ever sought a nanny position with a Bright Horizons client family, let alone a Bright Horizons client family that would have paid her more than she earned as a childcare center employee, but for the placement fee provision. Judge Evanson opines that Rutter offers no quantifiable (or even theoretical) measure by which her wages were reduced. While she alleges she incurred additional costs due to her transfer to a different Bright Horizons facility, Judge Evanson points out these injuries are not fairly traceable to the placement fee provision. When a case has been removed from state court, and a federal court finds the plaintiff does not have Article III standing, the proper remedy is to remand the case to state court, Judge Evanson explains, citing 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c); and Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear any of Rutter's claims, Judge Evanson rules that Bright Horizons' motion to dismiss is denied, and the case is remanded to the King County Superior Court for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/7tx68yvzfrom PacerMonitor.com. BRINKER INT'L: Steinmetz Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC STEINMETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and MICHAEL FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery is denied. The Plaintiffs Eric Steinmetz's and Michael Franklin's claims are dismissed with prejudice. 2. The Defendant's request to stay the case is denied without prejudice. 3. The Defendant's request for leave to brief "the full panoply of class certification issues" is denied without prejudice. For now, class certification briefing is limited to a predominance analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and the viability of the California class. The following schedule applies: a. The Plaintiff Shenika Theus's deadline to file a supplemental brief is February 23, 2024. b. The Defendant's response deadline is March 22, 2024. 4. The Court defers entering an amended case management and scheduling order until after the class certification matter is decided. This data breach case is before the Court on the parties' Joint Notice. Following an opinion and mandate by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Docs. 188, 189, the Court directed the parties to address whether Plaintiffs Eric Steinmetz and Michael Franklin are proper parties in the case. The Defendant opposes the discovery request, contends that Steinmetz and Franklin lack Article III standing, and asks the Court to dismiss them from the case. The Court declines to stay the case at this point. If the Supreme Court of the United States grants the petition, Defendant may renew the request to stay the case. Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Is42p at no extra charge.[CC] BROOGE ENERGY: White Sues Over Securities Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------ ERIC WHITE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOGE ENERGY LIMITED F/K/A BROOGE HOLDINGS LIMITED F/K/A TWELVE SEAS INVESTMENT COMPANY, NICOLAAS L. PAARDENKOOPER, SALEH YAMMOUT, SYED MASOOD ALI, BURGESE VIRAF PAREKH, LINA SAHEB, DIMITRI ELKIN, NEIL RICHARDSON, STEPHEN N. CANNON, and PAUL DITCHBURN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00959 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2024), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Brooge securities between November 25, 2019 and December 21, 2023 inclusive. On November 25, 2019, Twelve Seas filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) its definitive proxy on SEC to solicit votes for its December 19, 2019 Special Meeting to approve the planned merger with the then-private Brooge Holdings Limited. However, the proxy contains materially false and misleading statements because it understated the risk of Brooge's risk of being unable to operate profitably, given that Legacy Brooge was engaging in accounting fraud at the time the Proxy was filed with the SEC. Headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Brooge operates through its subsidiary, Brooge Petroleum and Gas Investment Company FZE, which was formed under the laws of the Fujairah Free Zone, United Arab Emirates, and conducts its business out of an oil storage facility in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates. Brooge common shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol "BROG". The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BSH HOME: Class Settlement in Peterson Suit Has Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH PETERSON, AMANDA CARLTON, REBECCA HIRSCH, MICHELE O'DELL, and PRASANNA RAMAKRISHNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00543-RAJ (W.D. Wash.). The matter is before the Court on the Parties' application, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for entry of an order preliminarily approving the settlement of this action pursuant to the settlement agreement fully executed on Dec. 7, 2023, which, together with its attached exhibits, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of the Action and dismissal of the Action with prejudice. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement as being within the realm of reasonableness to the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the Settlement Class as follows: all persons in the United States and its territories who either (a) purchased a new Class Product, or (b) acquired a new Class Product as part of the purchase or remodel of a home, or (c) received as a gift, from a donor meeting those requirements, a new Class Product not used by the donor or by anyone else after the donor purchased the Class Product and before the donor gave the Class Product to the Settlement Class Member, during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) officers, directors, and employees of Bosch or its parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (ii) insurers of Settlement Class Members, (iii) subrogees or all entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights of a Class Product purchaser, a Class Product owner, or a Settlement Class Member, (iv) persons who acquired an other-than-new Class Product, (v) issuers or providers of extended warranties or service contracts for Class Products, and (vi) persons who timely and validly exercise their right to be removed from the Settlement class. The Court appoints Harper Segui, Rachel Soffin, Erin Ruben, and Thomas Pacheco of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLC, as Settlement Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Elizabeth Peterson, Amanda Carlton, Rebecca Hirsch, Michele O'Dell, and Prasanna Ramakrishnan as Settlement Class Representatives. The Court approves the form and content of the Settlement Class Notice (Exhibit 4 to the Settlement Agreement) and Claim Form (Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement). The Court finds that the emailing of the Settlement Class Notice or sending via mail in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as well as the establishment of a settlement website, toll-free number, and digital notice campaign satisfies due process. The Court directs that, if they have not already done so, the Defendant's Counsel through CPT will provide notice under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, to the States' Attorneys General within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. The Court appoints CPT Group as the Claims Administrator. The Claims Administrator is directed to perform all settlement administration duties set out in the Settlement Agreement, including disseminate the Summary Notice by email if available or mail if email is not available, and establish the Settlement Website with the Settlement Agreement, FAQ, and other information that Bosch and Class Counsel jointly agree to post concerning the nature of the case and the status of the Settlement. Any Settlement Class Members, who do not wish to participate in the Settlement Class, may ask to be excluded. All requests to be excluded from the Settlement Class must be in writing, sent to the Claims Administrator at the addresses set forth in the Settlement Class Notice, and postmarked on or before the Opt-Out Deadline, which is April 25, 2024 (ninety-one (91) days after the date of this Order). Any Settlement Class Member, who has not previously submitted a Request for Exclusion, may object to the Settlement and appear at the Final Approval Hearing to support or oppose the approval of the Settlement Agreement. Any Settlement Class Member, who does not object in the manner provided in this Order, will be deemed to have waived such objections and will forever be foreclosed from objecting to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed settlement and any judgment approving the settlement. Settlement Class Counsel will file their motion for an award of attorneys' fees, inclusive of costs, expenses, and Settlement Class Representative Service Payments, by May 9, 2024 (one hundred five (105) days after the date of this Order). Settlement Class Counsel will file their Final Approval Motion by May 9, 2024 (one hundred five (105) days after the date of this Order). The Defendant will, on May 2, 2024, file with the Court a declaration from the Claims Administrator, which contains a list of the names and addresses of the members of the Settlement Class, who have requested to be excluded. The Court schedules the Final Approval Hearing for June 13, 2024. Settlement Class Members will have 180 days after the Notice Date to submit Claim Forms. Claim Forms must be postmarked by that date to be considered timely. Judge Jones notes that this order preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class and preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement triggers a series of events designed to inform absent Class Members about the Order. The Court adopts the parties' agreed-upon schedule detailed in the Plaintiff's motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/236mjz9mfrom PacerMonitor.com. BURBERRY LIMITED: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burberry Limited. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Burberry Limited, Case No. 1:23-cv-17118 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Burberry -- https://www.burberryplc.com/ -- is a global luxury brand with a rich British heritage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BYREDO USA INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Byredo USA Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Byredo USA Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00669 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Byredo -- https://www.byredo.com/us_en/ -- offers a collection of luxury perfumes, candles and leather goods.[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 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Balsamo Suit Transferred to D. Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Nicholas Balsamo, Dorla Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-02106 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Dec. 26, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00043-APG-NJK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. -- https://www.caesars.com/corporate -- formerly Eldorado Resorts, Inc., is an American hotel and casino entertainment company founded and based in Reno, Nevada that operates more than 50 properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse Song Chen, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 The Defendants are represented by: Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Fax: (415) 395-8095 CAIN & ASSOCIATES: Class Cert Filing in Sake Modified to April 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAKE TN, LLC, and SEANACHE HOMES, INC., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TREY CAIN, KALI CAIN, CAIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, TENNESSEE TITLE & ESCROW AFFILIATES, LLC, KNOX VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC, MORRIS FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC, PATRICK MOSS, IRA INNOVATIONS, LLC, MARY M. WESTER, individually and as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust, MIKE TODD, and ALYCIA WHITE as Executrix of the Estate of William J. Gulas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta A. Trauger entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Ninth Unopposed Motion to Modify Case Management Order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve their April 15, 2024 supplement the Motion to Certify on or before: 2. The Defendants shall file and serve their April 29, 2024 supplemental Class Expert Report on or before: 3. The Defendants shall file and serve their April 22, 2024 Response to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion on or before: 4. The parties shall submit their Mediation April 25, 2024 Report on or before: 5. All discovery in this matter, including May 29, 2024. depositions of all fact and expert witnesses shall close on: 6. Motions for Summary Judgment by any party June 27, 2024 are due on or before: A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=naUlos at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Brad Scarbrough, Esq. Gregory H. Oakley, Esq. Brandon A. Carnes, Esq. BUILDLAW, PLC 4300 Sidco Dr., Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37204 Telephone: (615) 369-9996 Facsimile: (615) 515-4491 E-mail: brad@build.law greg@build.law brandon@build.law CALIFORNIA AMMONIA: Mesquita Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Ammonia Co., et al. The case is styled as Alex Mesquita, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. California Ammonia Co. d/b/a CALAMCO, Daniel Stone, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0001136 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 30, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." California Ammonia Co. doing business as CALAMCO -- http://calamco.com/-- is a California-based cooperative made up of over 900 grower-members from throughout California, as well as fertilizer dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. KING & SIEGEL, LLP 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: 213-465-4802 Fax: 213-465-4803 Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Class Cert Bid in Gonzales Due Oct. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS J. FERRER GONZALEZ, v. CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01458-NODJ-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered a class action scheduling conference order: -- Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 11, 2024 Opposition: Nov. 8, 2024 Reply: Dec. 13, 2024 California Dairies includes fluid milk, butter and milk powders. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DsIRsT at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL HEALTH: Graycar Files Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Health System, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Bruce Graycar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree, Inc., Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-23234-MAS-DEA (E.D. Va., Dec. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Capital Health -- https://www.capitalhealth.org/ -- is the region's leader in providing progressive, quality patient care with exceptional physicians, nurses, and staff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew F. Albero, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 550 E. Swedesford Road, Suite 270 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (215) 977-4100 Email: andrew.albero@lewisbrisbois.com CAREFIRST INC: Court to Consider Class Cert Bid in Attias Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATTIAS et al v. CAREFIRST, INC. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882 (D.D.C., Filed June 10, 2015), the Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper entered an order taking under advisement motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Right to Privacy Act. CareFirst provides health benefit services.[CC] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Baker Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC.; REMI BARBIER; and ERIC J. SCHOEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00977 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2024) is a securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Cassava securities between August 18, 2022 and October 12, 2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company failed to maintain adequate and effective data management controls and procedures related to its drug research programs; (ii) as a result, the data published in support of simufilam were susceptible to manipulation to overstate the drug's effectiveness; (iii) accordingly, Cassava had misrepresented the efficacy of its research programs and the clinical and commercial prospects of simufilam; (iv) all of the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject the Company to significant financial and reputational harm; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Cassava's stock price fell $2.68 per share, or 15.28 percent, to close at $14.86 per share on October 13, 2023. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC. operates as a clinical-stage biotechnology company. The Company detects and treats neurodegenerative diseases such as alzheimer's. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com CHARLESTON AREA: Class Certification Bid in Strickland Due May 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM STRICKLAND, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00676 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene Berger entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The amendment of any pleading and the Feb. 9, 2024a joinder of any party shall be completed no later than: 2. Discovery relating to class certification April 5, 2024 shall be completed by: 3. Any motion for class certification shall May 6, 2024 be filed by: 4. The parties shall complete all discovery Aug. 2, 2024 5. All discovery, including disclosures Aug. 26, 2024 required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), but not disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), shall be completed by: 6. Summary Judgment and Other Dispositive Oct. 15, 2024 Motions: 7. Pretrial Conference/Final Settlement Jan. 29, 2025 Conference: 8. Jury Trial: Feb. 10, 2025 Charleston Area Medical is a nonprofit, 956-bed, regional referral center. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MQnCCX at no extra charge.[CC] CHILDREN'S PLACE: Johnson Fistel Discloses Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating whether The Children's Place (NASDAQ: PLCE) ("Children's Place" or the "Company") any of its executive officers or others violated securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material, adverse information to investors. The investigation focuses on investors' losses and whether they may be recovered under federal securities laws. What if I purchased Children's Place securities? If you purchased securities and suffered significant losses on your investment, join our investigation now: Click Here to Join the Investigation Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471 There is no cost or obligation to you. What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On February 9, 2024, Children's Place fell 50% in premarket trading following a report that the apparel retailer hired an adviser to evaluate ways to boost its cash reserves and find new financing. What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who provide original information may, under certain circumstances, receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys.[GN] CIRCLE K STORES: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certifcation Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC., an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:21-cv-00237-RBM-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the parties request that the Court vacate the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On Nov. 23, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, certifying a class of: "all persons in California who purchased a carton of cigarettes from a Circle K store in California and did not receive an advertised multi-pack discount from December 4, 2016 to present." The Defendant timely filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Order Granting Class Certification with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted on February 27, 2023. The Defendant filed its opening brief on appeal on September 14, 2023. The parties have since entered into a settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s claims -- the lead plaintiff for the proposed class and without which the class will lack a representative (and to which Plaintiff could not remain the proposed class representative). Circle K is a chain of convenience stores that is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. A copy of the Parties' dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Bo68M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131. The Defendants are represented by: Tyler R. Andrews, Esq. Matthew P. Hoxsie, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612-4410 Telephone: (949) 732-6500 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 E-mail: andrewst@gtlaw.com hoxsiem@gtlaw.com CIRCLE K: Faces TCPA Class Suit Over Slurpee Promotional Text ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, writing for The National Law Review, reports that so Circle K was just sued in a nationwide TCPA class action because they sent a promotional text for a new slurpee flavor: Breaking News! Mtn Dew Purple Thunder on Polar Pop! Exclusive at Circle K! Try for FREE! Expires 5/15: https://mfon.us/4txhpr8wx7s Per the complaint the Plaintiff EMISIAH HUGHES claims to have requested Circle K to stop messages to his phone b texting stop to 31310. But he claims he continued to receive text messages -- including the one above -- after asking Circle K to stop. The stop was allegedly sent in February and the texts allegedly followed in May, 2023 -- so this appears to be a circumstance where Circle K cannot take advantage of the FCC's safeharbor for revocation (assuming these facts are true.) Plaintiff alleges hundreds or "thousands" of others received the same sorts of messages after asking Circle K to stop and seeks to represent a class of: All persons in the United States from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification to whom: (1) Circle K sent text messages marketing its products or services, (2) Circle K sent more than one text message to the person in a twelve-month period, and, (3) Circle K sent such text messages after the person requested that Circle K stop sending them text messages. I can spot a few things wrong with this class definition. [GN] CLAYTON COUNTY SCHOOL: Henry Sues Over Non-Payment of Wages Earned ------------------------------------------------------------------ Karen Henry, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. CLAYTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 1:24-cv-00441-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant alleging systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and related claims for non-payment of wages earned. The Plaintiff seeks actual and liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for Defendant's failures to pay her wages and failure to pay her overtime premium, in violation of the FLSA, for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week—in particular for hours worked while "on call" and during her lunch "breaks," says the complaint. The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant on November 1, 2013, as a school resource officer in Defendant's safety and security department. CCSD is a public corporate body and a county political subdivision operating in Clayton County, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Knanishu, Esq. Justin Scott, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT, LLP 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: (678) 271-0300 Fax: (678) 271-0311 Email: jscott@radfordscott.com jknanishu@radfordscott.com COMPLIANCE STAFFING: Underpays Workers in Colorado, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Pennsylvania Record reports that a staffing agency based in Pennsylvania faces a Pittsburgh class action lawsuit from workers in Colorado who say they weren't paid enough. Andrew Griffis sued Compliance Staffing Agency, LLC, also known as Jennmar Services, on Jan. 25 in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff accuses the staffing agency of not paying its hourly workers in Colorado for all their hours worked. The complaint alleges that Jennmar only pays its employees based on the hours billed to its clients, regardless of the actual hours worked by the employees. This practice reportedly forces workers to work "off the clock" before and after their scheduled shifts without compensation. Griffis claims that this "billable pay scheme" violates the Colorado Wage Laws by denying him and other hourly workers their overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. He seeks unpaid wages and other damages under the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiff's legal representation includes Joshua P. Geist and William F. Goodrich from Goodrich & Geist PC; Michael A. Josephson, Andrew W. Dunlap, and William M. Hogg from Josephson Dunlap LLP; and Richard J. (Rex) Burch from Bruckner Burch PLLC.[GN] D-WAVE QUANTUM: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of D-Wave Quantum Inc. (NYSE: QBTS) resulting from allegations that D-Wave Quantum Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased D-Wave Quantum Inc. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22480 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 2, 2024, after market close, D-Wave filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K in which it announced, in pertinent part, that its "audited financial statements included in its Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the periods ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020", its "unaudited financial statements included in each [of the] quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the periods endings September 30, 2023, June 30, 2023, and March 31, 2023," and certain prior registration statements filed on Forms S1 and S4 on various dates (collectively, the "Affected Periods"), "[. . . ] should no longer be relied upon." In the same 8-K, D-Wave announced that it "plans to restate, as soon as practicable, the Financial Statements for the Affected Periods[.] (collectively, the "Restatement"). The Restatement mainly impacts non-cash and non-operating components of other income (expense) and net loss on the consolidated statements of operations and research incentives receivable and loans payable on the consolidated balance sheets." On this news, the price of D-Wave stock fell $0.0861 per share, or 8.88%, to close at $0.8829 on February 5, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com Email: cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] D.R. HORTON: Homeowners Sue Over Real Estate Property Management ---------------------------------------------------------------- katc.com reports that a Youngsville couple say their dreams of owning a home has turned into a nightmare after ongoing legal battle with D.R Horton -- one of the nation's biggest developers. "There's mold all around the corner on the ceiling . . . . It's on almost every air vent in the home." West and Alicia Dixon bought their new home almost nine years ago and claim they have been dealing with constant issues ever since. In 2022 the couple filed a class action lawsuit against D.R Horton, claiming D.R. Horton constructed and sold homes they "knew to be unsuitable for the humid environment of Louisiana." Although D.R Horton has denied those claims. The couple allege that their home was not build to withstand the Louisiana humidity." The couple's request for class action lawsuit status will be heard in a Baton Rouge court on February 20th. Lance Unglesby, one of the lead attorneys representing the Dixon's, believe that thousands of people could be impacted. "This case goes from Lake Charles to Slidell and we believe it's over five thousand homes. . . . These are hard working Louisiana citizens, being ripped off by an out of state company." While Ungelsby is calling for accountability, he hopes new laws would protect home owners from issues like this in the future. "They knew exactly what they were doing when they sold the homes. . . . They knew these homes were not built for the South Louisiana climate." D.R Horton's legal team has denied these allegations. Requests for comments from D.R Horton's legal team went unanswered up to press time. [GN] DEL VALLE RODRIGUEZ: Court Refuses to Toss Velez-Ortiz FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Hector L. Ramos-Vega of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled LYNNIE M. VELEZ-ORTIZ, Plaintiff v. DEL VALLE RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.S.C., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01220-HRV (D.P.R.). The present case is an action brought by Plaintiff Lynnie M. Velez-Ortiz against Defendant Del Valle Rodriguez Law Offices, P.S.C. (hereinafter "DVRLAW" or "Defendant"), alleging violations to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692-1692p ("FDCPA"). After receiving leave from the Court, the Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint on Nov. 7, 2023. About a week later, DVRLAW filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The crux of the Defendant's argument is that the allegations in the amended complaint are factually insufficient to establish Article III standing. On Dec. 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. In it, Ms. Velez-Ortiz maintains that the amended complaint contains sufficient allegations of damages and an injury in fact to survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The amended complaint alleges that Ms. Velez-Ortiz, who is a "consumer" as that term is defined by the FDCPA, accumulated a debt with Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("Banco Popular") in the form of a personal loan sometime before May 8, 2022. It is also alleged that sometime prior to that date, Banco Popular retained the services of DVRLAW, a professional services corporation regularly engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts on behalf of others. That makes DVRLAW, a "debt collector" under the FDCPA according to the allegations in the amended complaint. In a letter sent by mail to Ms. Velez-Ortiz, DVRLAW sought to collect on the debt allegedly owed to Banco Popular. The letter, the Plaintiff alleges, meets the definition of an "initial communication" under the FDCPA, and failed to disclose necessary information as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a). Among other things, the initial communication should have disclosed to the Plaintiff, in clearly understood language, that she had a right to dispute in writing the validity of the debt within 30 days of receipt of the initial communication (Count I). Additionally, the Plaintiff contends that Defendant DVRLAW failed to provide readily understandable information mandated by Regulation F (12 C.F.R. Section 1006.34(c)) in the initial communication, such as "the itemization date" of the debt, "the amount of the debt at the itemization date," and "an itemization of the current amount of the debt reflecting interests, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date" (Count II). Count III of the amended complaint alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e in that DVRLAW failed to disclose in the initial communication, as well as in a subsequent communication letter dated March 12, 2023 (Exhibit B), that it was acting as a debt collector. In sum, the Plaintiff's amended complaint accuses the Defendant of engaging in unlawful and deceptive debt-collection practices. She brings the present action on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons. With respect to damages, the amended complaint alleges that Ms. Velez-Ortiz suffered both tangible and intangible injuries due to the alleged unlawful debt-collection practices of DVRLAW. She allegedly required medical care and had to incur out-of-pocket expenses. She avers that she had to use more than $600 of her health insurance pharmacy allotment and had to take sick days from work. She also claims as damages suffered, that she incurred late fees and interests for other obligations that she failed to pay because she separated funds to pay the debt at issue here while operating under the incorrect belief that she had to pay without disputing the debt's validity. The Plaintiff also contends that she suffered intangible damages. For instance, she had to inform her employer that her wages would likely be subject to garnishment, something that she maintains tarnished her reputation. She alleges in general that she suffered stress, anxiety, frustration, anger, confusion and that her privacy was invaded. The original complaint was filed on May 4, 2023. As its first responsive pleading, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on Sept. 20, 2023. After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, the Plaintiff moved the Court to file an amended complaint. The case was then assigned to the Honorable Bruce J. McGiverin, United States Magistrate Judge, for all further proceedings, including the entry of judgment. Judge McGiverin denied the Defendant's request for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file, and mooted the motion to dismiss in light of the amended complaint. However, the Court indicated that, to the extent they were still applicable, the Defendant may raise the same arguments in a renewed motion to dismiss. The case was then reassigned to Judge Ramos-Vega. DVRLAW accepted Judge McGiverin's invitation and filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 14, 2023. The Plaintiff opposed on Dec. 13, 2023. The Court heard oral argument from the parties on Jan. 18, 2024. In its motion to dismiss, Judge Ramos-Vega says, the focus of the Defendant's argument is the first prong of the standing test, namely, the "injury in fact" requirement, and whether said injury is concrete and particular. The Defendant does not dispute that if the Plaintiff's alleged harm is concrete enough to meet the injury-in-fact prong, the harm will be traceable to DVRLAW and redressable by a favorable judgment of the Court under the FDCPA's statutory scheme. Accordingly, Judge Ramos-Vega addresses only whether the amended complaint has pleaded enough facts showing a concrete and particular injury to survive dismissal. DVRLAW argues in its motion to dismiss that the amended complaint conveniently added more specific facts and allegations about the damages suffered by the Plaintiff to cure the original assertion that she lacked standing. It maintains, however, that the amended complaint still fails to establish standing since the Plaintiff "did not suffer specific damages." In sum, the Defendant contends that the amended complaint merely alleges statutory violations of the FDCPA. In response, Ms. Velez-Ortiz submits that the amended complaint pleaded both tangible and intangible injuries that are sufficiently concrete to constitute an injury in fact for Article III standing purposes. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's amended complaint has sufficiently pleaded Article III standing. Judge Ramos-Vega holds that the allegations in the amended complaint are "sufficient to meet the minimal plausibility standard" to defeat a motion to dismiss, citing Dicroce v. McNeil Nutritionalists, LLC., 82 4th 35, 39 (1st Cir. 2023) (citing In re Evenflo Co., Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., 54 F.4th 28, 35 (1st Cir. 2022)). Judge Ramos-Vega is also persuaded by the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Mack v. Resurgent Cap. Servs., L.P., 70 F.4th 395 (7th Cir. 2023). In Mack, the plaintiff incurred a credit-card debt that the defendants sought to collect. Mack took several steps to request validation of the debt. She did not receive the validation that she requested; instead, she received a second letter, this time from Resurgent, that contained similar language as the first letter, suggesting that she had 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt. The district court held that Mack had failed to allege an injury in fact. Relevantly, the district court found that the time, effort, and out-of-pocket costs expended in sending a second validation of debt request, "did not rise to the level of detriment required for standing in FDCPA cases." On appeal, the Seventh Circuit disagreed. First, the appellate court noted that a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Second, the appellate court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient in that the plaintiff pleaded that she had to incur additional out-of-pocket expenses to re-dispute the debt after the defendants sent her a communication that would confuse any debtor into believing that the initial dispute was not valid. The appellate court found that Mack met the remaining prongs of the standing test as well, namely particularity, traceability, and redressability. The judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint was reversed. Like the plaintiff in Mack, Judge Ramos-Vega finds that Ms. Velez-Ortiz' amended complaint has sufficiently alleged economic harm and out-of-pocket expenses, which is enough to establish a concrete and particular injury, notwithstanding how modest the dollar cost may be. Judge Ramos-Vega also holds, among other things, that the Defendant's reliance in cases from other circuits is misplaced. DVRLAW cites two Seventh Circuit cases, and one Eighth Circuit opinion in support of its lack of standing argument; see, e.g., Choice v. Kohn Law Firm, 77 F.4th 636 (7th Cir. 2023); Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 36 F.4th 728 (7th Cir. 2022); Bassett v. Credit Bureau Servs., 60 F.4th 1132 (8th Cir. 2023). These cases are distinguishable, Judge Ramos-Vega points out. In this case, unlike the plaintiffs in Choice, Pierre and Bassett, Ms. Velez-Ortiz has specifically alleged a tangible harm in the form of monetary damages and physical injury, Judge Ramos-Vega points out. Moreover, in addition to tangible harm, the amended complaint alleges several forms of intangible injuries: informational injury, reputational harm, and invasion of privacy/intrusion into seclusion. These have been recognized by the caselaw as concrete enough injuries to confer Article III standing. Therefore, Judge Ramos-Vega holds, at this stage, the allegations in the amended complaint are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss because they meet the minimal plausibility standard, and because the Court must credit the allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, Judge Ramos-Vega denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. At this stage of the proceedings, and given the non-onerous pleading standard, Judge Ramos-Vega finds that the allegations in the amended complaint are sufficient to plead Article III standing. Judge Ramos-Vega writes: "Notwithstanding, I note that this is a close case and plaintiff should not take comfort in my ruling. It may very well be that once discovery has been conducted, and through a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the alleged concrete injuries-in-fact are not so. The undeniable fact is that following TransUnion, the state of the law in this area is in flux, with the overwhelming majority of cases finding lack of standing with allegations of harm similar to the ones asserted by Ms. Velez-Ortiz. But at this time, I find that she has done enough and lives to fight another day." A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 25, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5yt3n9csfrom PacerMonitor.com. DRESSER LLC: Court Enters Lone Pine Order in D&J Investments Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David C. Joseph of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division, issued a Memorandum Ruling granting motion for entry of Lone Pine Order in the lawsuit captioned D&J INVESTMENTS OF CENLA, LLC, ET AL. v. DRESSER, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:23-cv-00508-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.). Before the Court is the Motion for Entry of Lone Pine Order (the "Motion") filed by Defendants Dresser, LLC, Dresser RE, LLC, Baker Hughes Company, Baker Hughes Holdings, LLC, and Baker Hughes Energy Services, LLC (collectively, "Dresser"). Five substantively identical Motions for Entry of Lone Pine Order were granted in the following cases: (i) Barnes v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM; (ii) Barton v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM; (iii) Cook v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00696-DCJ-JPM; (iv) Barrett v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01346-DCJ-JPM; and (v) Petty v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02586-DCJ-JPM (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Related Cases"). In the Motion, Dresser seeks the entry of a Lone Pine order to expeditiously identify those claims for personal injury damages lacking evidentiary support. No opposition has been filed; however, the Defendants filed a reply brief in every case in which they filed a Motion. This matter was stayed on May 18, 2023, pending a ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, which was denied on Jan. 24, 2024. Considering the foregoing, Judge Joseph orders that the stay in this matter is lifted, and this matter is consolidated with the Related Cases. A Consolidation Order will be filed separately. The Related Cases arise from the operations of a now-closed pipe valve manufacturing facility located in Rapides Parish, Louisiana (the "Dresser Facility"). The plaintiffs in the Related Cases claim that the Dresser Facility improperly disposed of solvents, cutting oils, acids, and caustics, thereby contaminating the groundwater and soil in the surrounding area. Hundreds of plaintiffs filed lawsuits alleging personal injury and property damage claims against Dresser and other defendants in state and federal courts, alleging that this contamination migrated onto their nearby properties, causing both property damage and either present or potential future personal injury resulting from their exposure to toxins. On Oct. 1, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Coordinated Discovery Order in some of the Related Cases, pursuant to which the Plaintiffs were ordered to produce "Plaintiff Information Sheets," identifying the specific properties at issue and the personal injuries allegedly caused by the Defendants. In the instant Motions, the Defendants claim, despite the Court's order, that: (i) they have not received a Plaintiff Information Sheet for each Plaintiff in the Related Cases; and (ii) for the ones they did receive, nearly every residential property owner asserts a personal injury claim without regard to: (a) their proximity to the affected groundwater; (b) the concentrations of TCE and/or PCE detected or not detected in their homes; (c) their length of time in the allegedly impacted residence; or (d) the nature of their alleged ailment. The Defendants further argue that most, if not all, of the Plaintiffs are unable to show sufficient exposure and causation to support a personal injury claim. On Sept. 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the Related Cases pursuant to Rule 42 for the limited purpose of determining common issues of fact. A consolidated Phase I trial of these common issues is set for May 13, 2024. Among the common issues that will be tried during Phase I is the cause of the toxic plume and the allocation of responsibility among the defendants. A deadline of Feb. 13, 2024, had been set for the completion of all discovery. A "Lone Pine" order, which derives its name from Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., No. L–33606–85, 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986), is a discovery tool designed to address the complex issues and potential burdens on defendants and courts in mass tort litigation by requiring plaintiffs to meet an evidentiary threshold before being permitted to further pursue their claims. In Steering Comm. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 461 F.3d 598, 604 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2006), a case involving smoke exposure from a chemical plant fire, the Fifth Circuit approved the district court's order requiring that each plaintiff produce, pursuant to a Lone Pine order, either an affidavit from a qualified treating or other physician or an affidavit from a qualified real estate appraiser or other real estate expert, depending on the type of injury alleged. As is the case here, Judge Joseph says the district court in Exxon Mobil had previously denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, noting that the Lone Pine order served as a useful tool in cases where class certification is inappropriate, but discovery is nevertheless complex. Here, Judge Joseph notes, the parties in the Related Cases have disagreed about both the utility and the timing of the entry of a Lone Pine order at this stage in the litigation. While acknowledging that Lone Pine orders can assist the Court and parties in certain mass toxic tort cases, the Plaintiffs oppose the instant motions on the grounds that a Lone Pine order is an extraordinary remedy that is not appropriate at this juncture. The Plaintiffs argue that they should not be required to submit prima facie evidence of their personal injury claims prior to the completion of discovery and the resolution of common issues at the Phase I jury trial on May 13, 2024. They also contend that entry of a Lone Pine order would be tantamount to an improper substitute for summary judgment. The Defendants, on the other hand, contend that some of the Related Cases have been pending for more than three years, and that the discovery sought in the Lone Pine order regarding medical causation is information the Plaintiffs should have had at the time they filed their lawsuits. To counter the Plaintiffs' argument that causation simply cannot be determined at this time, the Defendants cite the sworn Declaration of Dr. Christopher Teaf, a toxicologist, who testified that sufficient information exists to perform a causation analysis. While the Court makes no finding at this time with respect to the viability of any of the Plaintiffs' personal injury claims in the Related Cases, the Court notes that the Defendants' expert Dr. Christopher Teaf has concluded that there is no general causal link between TCE and/or PCE exposure and the vast majority of the Plaintiffs' alleged conditions. The Court also takes into consideration the evidence and expert testimony admitted during its Rule 65 hearing in the related matter of Hyatt v. Dresser, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01460-DCJ-JPM. There, on Feb. 23-24, 2022, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. After two days of testimony, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, specifically finding that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a measurable risk to their health given the low levels of PCE and TCE that were found in the air in their home. The Court further found that, despite those plaintiffs credibly testifying that they were concerned about exposure to chemicals from the Dresser facility, they had not been diagnosed with any medical condition linked to TCE and/or PCE exposure. Further, the Hyatt plaintiffs had taken no actions—such as consulting their physicians, requesting an air filter from Dresser, or attempting to sell their home or otherwise physically relocate—that were consistent with their claims that they had developed genuine and serious mental distress resulting from their alleged exposure to these chemicals. Thus, Judge Joseph points out, this Court has already determined that at least two plaintiffs allegedly exposed to PCE and TCE were unable to show a causal connection between their alleged physical and mental symptoms and the presence of PCE and TCE allegedly caused by the contaminant dispersion at issue. Considering the foregoing and after careful consideration of the arguments of the parties, the applicable law, and the current posture of the litigation in the Related Cases, the Court finds that entry of a Lone Pine order is appropriate in the Related Cases pertaining to the Plaintiffs' claims for personal injury. The instant case involves 86 plaintiffs—in addition to the 259 plaintiffs in the Related Cases and the two plaintiffs in the Arnold case—bringing complex toxic tort cases against multiple defendants. Judge Joseph finds that the pleadings offer little, if any, specific causation theories or claims describing the impact of the contaminants at issue on each individual Plaintiff. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs are now in possession of sufficient discovery and information regarding the nature, geographical extent, and chemical constituents of the toxic plume to comply with a Lone Pine order. Each plaintiff should have at least some information regarding the nature of his or her alleged injuries, the circumstances under which he or she could have been exposed to harmful substances, and the basis for believing that the named defendants were responsible for those alleged injuries. The Court further finds that entry of a Lone Pine Order will simplify the Related Cases, streamline costs for both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, conserve judicial resources, and aid the Court in preparing for both the Phase I trial, as well as further proceedings in each of the Related Cases. For these reasons and in an effort to expedite discovery, conserve judicial resources, and facilitate the administration of these Related Cases, the Court grants the Motion for Entry of Lone Pine Order. On or before Feb. 28, 2024, any Plaintiff in this matter, who has not done so, will produce to the Defendants a completed Plaintiff Information Sheet. On or before May 24, 2024, each Plaintiff claiming a personal injury sustained as a result of exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE), either to himself or herself, or on behalf of a minor or decedent, must serve on the Defendants a sworn affidavit from a licensed physician or other qualified expert, or both, as may be necessary, which sets forth the following for each claimant: (a) A list of all specific injuries, illnesses, or conditions that the claimant suffered as a result of the alleged exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE); (b) The date(s) on which each such injury, illness, or condition was first suffered by the claimant and the date(s) on which a physician or other health care professional examined or treated the claimant for the injury, illness, or condition allegedly caused by exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE); (c) An explanation of the manner of exposure (i.e., ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact, etc.), the dates of exposure, and the duration of exposure; (d) The name and address of each physician or other medical care provider, who treated the claimant, a summary of the treatment provided, and any diagnosis; (e) An opinion, based on a reasonable degree of medical or scientific probability, that the claimed injury, illness, or medical condition was caused by the exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE); and (f) A descriptive narrative and list of source materials, if any, providing the scientific and medical basis for any expert's opinion that the claimed injury, illness, or medical condition may be caused by exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) or tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The Court further orders that the stay previously entered in this matter be lifted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Ruling dated Jan. 25, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5n7r2p9cfrom PacerMonitor.com. ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beauchane Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL W. BEAUCHANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., d/b/a EMSI, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00131 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 2, 2024) is an action arising from its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information1 and Protected Health Information of its patients. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, that as a long-standing member of the healthcare community, the Defendant knew or should have known the importance of safeguarding patient PII entrusted to it and of the foreseeable consequences of a breach. Despite this knowledge, however, the Defendant failed to take adequate cyber-security measures to prevent the Data Breach from happening, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the Class have been significantly injured by the Data Breach and have incurred out-of-pocket expenses associated with the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ. The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of fraud and identity theft due to their sensitive PII falling into the hands of cybercriminals, the suit alleges. Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. offers medical devices. The Company specializes home electrical stimulation devices, bracing, accessories for pain management, and physical rehabilitation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. Tricia Herzfeld, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com tricia@hsglawgroup.com - and - Peter J. Jannace, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 636-4333 Email: peter@hsglawgroup.com FCA US: Diaz Files 3rd Cir. Appeal in Consumer Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- GUSTAVO DIAZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying in part and granting in part their request for certification of direct appeal in the lawsuit entitled Gustavo Diaz, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1-21-cv-00906, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs are residents of California, Florida, and New York, and bring a putative consumer class action on behalf of themselves, a proposed class comprised of "all persons in the United States who purchased or leased 2014-2019 model year Dodge Challengers and Chargers equipped with the V8 engine," and, in the alternative, a number of proposed sub-classes comprised of residents of California, Florida, and New York who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs at the time of purchase, however, each "Class Vehicle was equipped with a rear differential that was defective and not robust enough for the horsepower and torque loads of the driveline." According to them, FCA knew of the Differential Defect at the time of their purchases, but did not disclose it to any of them, which resulted in them making purchases "on the reasonable but mistaken belief that their Class Vehicles would be safe and reliable on public roadways, and capable of track use," which they were not. On Sept. 3, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Evan J. Wallach on Sept. 2, 2022. On Oct. 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file first amended class action complaint. On Dec. 2, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint. On Sept. 21, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was granted with respect to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, and XII, as well as to the requested relief to compel FCA to perform a voluntary recall according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations. Counts I, II, III (as to Plaintiffs Diaz, Santos, Gibson, Sinclair, and Veal), IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, and XII, as well as to the requested relief to compel FCA to perform a voluntary recall according to NHTSA regulations were dismissed with prejudice. Count III (as to Plaintiffs Stone and Kissler) was dismissed without prejudice. The motion to dismiss was denied with respect to Counts IX and XI. On Nov. 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a request for certification of direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals entitled Plaintiff's motion to certify an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) or, in the alternative, for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). On Jan. 2, 2024, the Court denied in part to the extent that the Plaintiffs request certification to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) and was granted in part to the extent that the Plaintiffs request entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) for the fraud-based claims (Counts I, II, V, VI, VIII, X & XII). The appellate case is captioned Gustavo Diaz, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 24-1197, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 2, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GUSTAVO DIAZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 831-4701 (215) 875-4601 - and - Kelly A. Green, Esq. SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS 1000 N. West Street The Brandywine Building, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-8400 Defendant-Appellee FCA US LLC is represented by: Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq. Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-7400 FEDEX GROUND: Court Allows Sixteen Drivers to Intervene in a Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther at blogs.duanemorris.com reports that Duane Morris Takeaways: In Martinez v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., No. 20-CV-1052, 2024 WL 418801 (D.N.M. Feb. 5, 2024), Judge Steven C. Yarbrough of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the intervention motion of 16 putative class members to join the lawsuit. The Court held that the plaintiff-intervenors met the standard for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2). The Court's decision in this case serves as an important reminder that Rule 23 and Rule 24 employ two separate commonality standards, and that class action cases are not automatically over when a court denies class certification. Case Background On October 12, 2020, Plaintiffs Fernandez Martinez and Shawnee Barrett (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. ("Fedex"), alleging that Fedex misclassified them as independent contractors and failed to pay them and putative class members overtime wages in violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all current or former New Mexico FedEx drivers who were paid a day rate without overtime compensation. On October 27, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that common questions predominated over individualized issues pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Martinez v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., No. 20-CV-1052, 2023 WL 7114678 (D.N.M. Oct. 27, 2023). On December 15, 2023, a group of 16 putative class members (the "Intervenors") filed a motion to intervene as plaintiffs in the Lawsuit under Rule 24. Martinez, 2024 WL 418801, at 1. In their motion, the Intervenors alleged that they, like Plaintiffs, were "current or former New Mexico FedEx delivery drivers who were paid the same amount of money regardless of how many hours they worked in a day, resulting in no premium payment for overtime hours worked in violation of the [NMMWA]." Id. The Court's Decision The Court granted the Intervenors' motion. Id. at 2. It held that the Intervenors presented sufficient "questions of law and fact in common with the main action" under Rule 24. Id. The Court noted that permissive intervention under Rule 24 is appropriate where (i) a federal statute creates a conditional right, or (ii) where the "intervenor has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Id. In its opposition, FedEx asserted that because the Intervenors were employed by independent service providers ("ISPs") to deliver packages on behalf of FedEx, and were not employed by FedEx directly, FedEx was not liable under the NMMWA for allegedly unpaid overtime. Id. Further, FedEx argued that the commonality requirement of Rule 24 was not met because the Court already found the absence of a common question when it denied class certification. Id. While the Court recognized that it denied class certification under Rule 23's commonality requirement, it was not persuaded by FedEx's arguments. The Court underscored that under Rule 24, "rather than asking whether a question is susceptible to resolution 'in one stroke,' courts must ask whether intervenors present 'questions of law and fact in common with' the main action." Id. The Court concluded that the "existing plaintiffs and every intervenor [would] assert that certain common aspects of [FedEx's] contracts with ISPs [made FedEx] a joint employer and, consequently, jointly liable for any [NMMWA] violations." Id. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the Intervenors satisfied the Rule 24 commonality standard and were permitted to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs. Id. at 3. Implications For Companies The decision in Martinez v. FedEx serves as an important reminder for defendants that class actions are not necessarily over once class certification is denied - and some members of the putative class may take a run at joining the lawsuit per Rule 24. Additionally, it underscores the distinct commonality analyses under Rule 23 and Rule 24.[GN] FG GROUP: Monteverde Continues to Investigate Securities Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- El Paso Inc. reports that Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are now investigating: FG Group Holdings Inc. (NYSE: FGH ), relating to its proposed sale to FG Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, FGH shareholders will receive one share of FG Financial common stock per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/fg-group-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. PGT Innovations, Inc. (NYSE: PGTI ), relating to its proposed sale to Masonite International Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, PGTI shareholders will receive $7.50 in common shares of Masonite and $33.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pgt-innovations-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Science 37 Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNCE ), relating to its proposed sale to eMed, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, SNCE shareholders will receive $5.75 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/science-37-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Juniper Networks, Inc. (NYSE: JNPR ), relating to its proposed sale to Hewlett Packard. Under the terms of the agreement, JNPR shareholders are expected to receive $40.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/juniper-networks-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: Do you recover money for shareholders? Do you litigate and go to Court? Do you even go to the office and wear a suit? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC ( www.monteverdelaw.com ). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: Plan to Settle 401(k) Fund Swap Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that FirstGroup America Inc. and an Aon PLC unit struck a "global settlement" with a class of FirstGroup workers challenging their 401(k) plan's move to Aon funds. The comprehensive settlement will resolve all claims in the six-year-old lawsuit, workers said in a court filing. They plan to file details of the deal for court approval within three weeks, they said. The proposed settlement will "update" a partial deal that would have resolved claims against Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting Inc. for $4.5 million. [GN] FIVE BELOW: Court Refuses Renewal of Bid to Dismiss Krawitz Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SPENCER KRAWITZ and CASSANDRA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-LDH-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies the Defendant's request for leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss, and motion for a stay of discovery. On Oct. 16, 2023, Defendant Five Below, Inc., filed a request for a pre-motion conference, seeking leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, the Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its anticipated motion to dismiss. The Court held a pre-motion conference on Dec. 20, 2023, and reserved ruling on whether the Defendant would be granted leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss. Under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), a district court will have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. Here, the amended complaint alleges that members of the Class number in the thousands and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $5 million. Likewise, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly exceeded CAFA's amount in controversy. Nonetheless, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the CAFA amount in controversy because the liquidated damages they seek are unconstitutionally excessive punitive damages. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages of $43 million, yet actual damages are limited to approximately $75,000 based on interest for late wage payments. This, the Defendant argues, results in an impermissible ratio of over 575-to-1 for "punitive damages versus actual damages," thus, the maximum amount that the Plaintiffs can lawfully collect does not exceed CAFA's amount in controversy of $5 million. The Court rejects this challenge on several grounds, not the least of which it is premature. As an initial matter, Judge Hall says the Defendant's argument is highly speculative. To even entertain the Defendant's theory, the Court would need to make a finding as to actual damages--an impossible task when the Defendant's hypothetical damages calculations are based on data that it has not even provided to the Court or the Plaintiffs. Nor is the Court persuaded that the Defendant could have not obtained this data prior to filing its initial motion to dismiss. The Defendant's theory is further flawed because it assumes that actual damages are limited to the interest on late wage payments, Judge Hall opines. In other words, as the Defendant's argument goes, liquidated damages should not be considered actual damages under N.Y.L.L. Section 198 (1-a). Tellingly, the Defendant provides no authority for this position, and its argument seemingly ignores Vega v. CM & Assocs. Constr. Mgmt., LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1144, 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019), where the First Department recognized that liquidated damages under N.Y.L.L. Section 198 (1-a) "provide a remedy to workers complaining of untimely payment of wages." More importantly, Judge Hall opines, at this stage of the case there has been no damages award, nor any record on which to assess whether a punitive damages award would be excessive in light of the degree of reprehensibility of the Defendant's misconduct, the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the Plaintiffs and the punitive damages award, and the difference between the punitive damages awarded and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. Even if the Defendant is correct that the ultimate damages awarded here violate the Due Process Clause, Judge Hall points out that the Defendant has offered no legal basis for why the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims rather than reduce the award of damages at the appropriate time. The Defendant is, therefore, denied leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss, and its motion to stay is likewise denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 25, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2wh7h89yfrom PacerMonitor.com. FIVE KEYS SCHOOLS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- norcalrecord.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Keys Schools and Programs, a Bay Area charter school operator. The plaintiff, Stephen Michael Adams, alleges that the company has violated several California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, provide meal periods and rest periods, timely pay wages, indemnify, pay interest on deposits and unfair competition. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order directing Five Keys to pay workers included in the class action restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, plus penalties and other unspecified damages, plus attorney fees. The suit was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court on Jan. 23. The plaintiff is represented by attorneys David D. Bibiyan, Jeffrey D. Klein, and Paal Bakstad, of the Bibiyan Law Group, of Beverly Hills. [GN] FUJIFILM NORTH: S.D.N.Y. Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Inong Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip M. Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled JETHRO INONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-09720-PMH (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Jethro Inong brings this putative class action against Fujifilm North America Corporation alleging that the Defendant's product--the X-Pro3 camera (the "Product")--did not function reliably or remain free of flaws, damage, or deficiencies, despite the Defendant's purported marketing of the Product as durable, capable of functioning reliably, and remaining in proper working condition for years to come. Presently pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition, and the motion was fully briefed with the filing of the Defendant's reply memorandum of law. The Defendant thereafter, on Jan. 9, 2024, and Jan. 17, 2024, provided the Court with supplemental authority in further support of its motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff, a resident of California, alleges that four years ago, "in winter 2019," he purchased the Product from a third-party retailer in Los Angeles, California. At some unspecified time, the ribbon connector cable in the Product failed. The Plaintiff alleges that "many individuals" have complained about the Product, issues with the ribbon connection, and the Defendant's "handling of the situation" on certain online forum communities. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant marketed its product as a professional rangefinder camera for photographers on the move, who want top-level features, a low-profile, and reliable durability, which tells purchasers it will function reliably and be free of flaws, damage, defects, and deficiencies subject to normal and intended use. He further alleges that the Defendant represented that the combination of durability and advanced features create a camera that can be relied upon to perform in any situation. Thus, he expected the Product to be capable of functioning reliably and remaining in proper working condition for years to come. Had the Plaintiff known that the camera fails to operate reliably, consistent with normal and expected use, due in part to its defective ribbon connector cables, he would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers on claims arising under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and common law breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief allege California consumer fraud claims under the UCL and FAL. The Defendant contends that these claims fail to plausibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court agrees. Because these claims are premised on allegations of fraud, Judge Halpern says they are subject to the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). The allegations in support of these claims fail to meet this heightened standard, Judge Halpern points out. Judge Halpern finds there is nothing "unambiguously deceptive" about the Defendant's Product listing. The Plaintiff simply has not alleged that the Defendant actually misstated any material facts about the Product and does not plead whether he even saw this language before making his purchase. The deficiencies in this pleading are akin to those examined in Bondick v. Ricoh Imaging Americas Corp., 21-C-06132, 2022 WL 2116664, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2022), which likewise involved a digital camera. The Plaintiff's claims do not plausibly allege that any reasonable person would have interpreted the statements alleged in the manner urged by the Plaintiff, Judge Halpern notes. The Plaintiff alleges that the subject representations are that Product's construction from titanium, when combined with certain advanced features, create a camera that can be relied upon to perform in any situation, and is made "for photographers on the move who want top-level features, a low-profile, and reliable durability." But that language simply does not tell consumers the Product would function reliably and be free of flaws, damage, defects, and deficiencies subject to normal and intended use, although even when the camera is in excellent condition and never dropped or banged, the sub monitor and LCD become non-functional because of the defective ribbon cables, Judge Halpern opines. Judge Halpern also opines, among other things, that the Amended Complaint does not draw any connection between ribbon connector cables and the Product's body design that features a top and base plate constructed from titanium; thus, making it more durable than stainless steel. To the extent the omission to which the Plaintiff refers in the Amended Complaint is the Defendant's failure to disclose the possibility that the Product might someday require repair or suffer a defect or damage, Judge Halpern finds such allegation fails as it is entirely unsupported by allegations that the Defendant concealed a known defect. Thus, Judge Halpern holds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts to plausibly allege that the Defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions to sufficiently support a claim under the UCL or FAL. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief are dismissed. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's third claim for relief (breach of express warranty claim) fails: (1) for the same reasons his consumer fraud claims fail; (2) because the Defendant's Warranty disclaims all warranties other than an obligation to repair and/or replace a defective camera within the first year after its purchase; and (3) because the Plaintiff failed to provide pre-suit notice of a breach of warranty. The Plaintiff alleges that he provided or provides notice to the Defendant, its agents, representatives, retailers, and their employees that it breached the Product's express warranty. Although the Plaintiff does not plead in the Amended Complaint when he provided notice, he concedes in his opposition brief that he notified the Defendant of the breach by filing this action on Nov. 11, 2022. Thus, Judge Halpern holds the Plaintiff's breach claim is subject to dismissal for failure to provide timely pre-suit notice. The Plaintiff does not cite to any authority respecting express warranty claims under California law, which provides otherwise. The Plaintiff's breach claim also fails for the additional reason that it is premised on the same unreasonable reading of the same advertising statements as his consumer fraud claims, Judge Halpern opines. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief is dismissed. The Plaintiff, at the conclusion of his opposition brief, devotes less than one sentence to a request, in the alternative, for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Judge Halpern finds that the nature of the Plaintiff's request is especially improper where, as here, the Plaintiff has already had multiple opportunities to amend his pleading. As the Plaintiff has offered no explanation for how he would be able to cure the defects in his claims, the Court denies his request, made in the alternative in his opposition brief, for leave to further amend. Based upon the foregoing, Judge Halpern grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion and close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 25, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2p8xapcdfrom PacerMonitor.com. HERSHEY CO: S.D. California Narrows Claims in Grausz Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the lawsuit styled EVA GRAUSZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00028-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal.). The Defendant moved dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, to which Hershey replied. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the instant matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. Defendant Hershey manufactures and sells various dark chocolate products under the Hershey's and Lily's brand names. In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges recent independent lab testing found that several of Hershey's and Lily's chocolate products contain lead and cadmium, including Hershey's Special Dark Mildly Sweet Chocolate, Lily's Extremely Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa, Lily's Extra Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa, Lily's Original Dark Chocolate Stevia Sweetened 55% Cocoa Non GMO, and Lily's Sea Salt Extra Dark Chocolate 70% - Stevia Sweetened (the "Products"), and that those metals are unsafe at any level. The Plaintiff further alleges Hershey has been on notice that its Products contain high levels of heavy metals since 2014, but that Hershey has failed to effectively reduce or remove heavy metals from the Products. Her allegations are based on a December 2022 article from Consumer Reports and a March 2023 article by As You Sow ("AYS"). She states she regularly purchased Lily's Extremely Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa, often making her purchase in San Diego, California. She contends Hershey's advertising did not feature warnings that the Products contained toxic amounts of heavy metals. Rather, Hershey touts its safety standards and how it vets its ingredient sources, and highlights the public trust that it has garnered as a result. According to the Plaintiff, she and the purported class were exposed to, saw, read, and understood the labels of the Products, which omitted the presence of heavy metals, and that they relied upon the omission of warnings about the potential dangers of the Products containing heavy metals when making the decision to purchase the Products. Had she known the Products contained heavy metals, she claims she and the purported class would not have purchased the Products or would have paid less for them. While she wishes to purchase the Products in the future, the Plaintiff says she may not be able to reasonably determine whether the lead or cadmium in the Products has been addressed without an injunction because she cannot rely on the false representations in Hershey's current advertising and marketing scheme. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of herself and as a representative of all those similarly situated for: (1) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Count I); (2) Violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL") (Count II); (3) Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Count III); (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count IV); and (5) Unjust Enrichment (Count V). In 2015, AYS sent California's Proposition 65 notices to various chocolate manufacturers, including Hershey, asserting their products contained lead and cadmium at levels exceeding California's Maximum Allowable Daily Levels (MADLs). In February 2018, the California Superior Court entered a consent judgment among AYS, Hershey, and others (the "Consent Judgment"), after finding the proposed judgment met the requirements of California law and was in the public interest, and the Consent Judgment was, thereafter, endorsed by California's Attorney General (quoting Consent Judgment, Case No. CGC-15-548791 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cnty. Feb. 15, 2018) at 2–20).) The Consent Judgment raised the MADL thresholds for Hershey's products and specified that compliance with the new limits would constitute compliance with Proposition 65 regarding lead and/or cadmium in chocolate. The Consent Judgment operated as a "full, final, and binding resolution" of AYS's claims on behalf of itself and of the general public. While the review scope of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is limited to the complaint, Judge Battaglia notes that a court may consider evidence on which the complaint necessarily relies. Here, Hershey requests the Court take judicial notice of twelve exhibits in support of its Motion to Dismiss. First, Hershey requests judicial notice of the Consent Judgment, Case No. CGC-15-548791 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cnty. Feb. 15, 2018). The Court may take judicial notice of court filings. Therefore, the Court grants Hershey's request for judicial notice of the state court Consent Judgment. Next, Hershey requests judicial notice of a California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") report entitled Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Daily Level (MADL) for Reproductive Toxicity for Cadmium, published in May 2001; a publicly available letter the Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Harrison M. Pollak, wrote to Danielle Fugere of the "As You Sow" organization on December 4, 2019; several FDA-written articles and one public FDA meeting transcript; a publicly available letter the Deputy Attorney General, Susan S. Fiering, wrote to Jake Shulte, Esq., of "Nicholas and Tomacevic LLP," and Noam Glick. Esq. of "Glick Law Group," on Feb. 1, 2021; and a U.S. Department of Health & Human Services report entitled Toxicological Profile for Cadmium, dated September 2012. However, the Court does not rely on these documents in reaching its conclusion in this Order. Accordingly, the Court denies as moot Hershey's requests for judicial notice as to these exhibits. In its motion to dismiss, Hershey asserts that each of the Plaintiff's claims fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the UCL, the FAL, and the CLRA based on Hershey's alleged fraudulent and unlawful omissions, and violations of the UCL based on unfair conduct. The Plaintiff's CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims are largely based on overlapping theories of liability. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not plead that the amounts of substances in Hershey's Products have created an unreasonable safety hazard. The Plaintiff merely asserts that lead and cadmium are carcinogens, that there may be no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen, and that Hershey's products contain some amount of these substances. Thus, the Court grants Hershey's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's claims on this basis under the UCL (under the fraudulent and unlawful omissions prongs), CLRA, and FAL with leave to amend. The Plaintiff next asserts that food regulations require Hershey to list lead and cadmium in the ingredient list of the Products. Hershey argues it is not required to list lead or cadmium as separate ingredients in the ingredient list because those metals were already present in the cocoa beans when Hershey incorporated those beans into the Products. The Plaintiff asserts that whether an additive is present at an "insignificant level" in the food depends on whether consumers care about the amount of the offending chemical in the product], such that it is possible a substance is not present "at insignificant levels" even when it is present "in very small amounts." The Court agrees. Moreover, the Court finds Hershey's reliance on Herrington v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., No. C 09–1597 CW, 2010 WL 3448531 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010), unpersuasive. In Herrington, the court did not analyze whether the additives at issue in allegedly misbranded cosmetics, which the plaintiff merely alleged "may be carcinogenic for humans," were present at insignificant levels. As such, the Court denies Hershey's motion to dismiss on this basis. Hershey next argues the Plaintiff's UCL claim under the "unfair" prong also fails because she fails to plead the challenged conduct caused a substantial injury to consumers. The Court notes that the levels of lead and cadmium in the Products fit within the parameters described in the Consent Judgment, and thus, Hershey's actions were lawful. However, Judge Battaglia finds the Plaintiff sufficiently pleads an actionable omission under the FDCA, and thus, Hershey's motion to dismiss on this basis is denied. Hershey again moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims for her failure to allege a lack of adequate legal remedies which, under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), is a prerequisite to the pursuit of an equitable claim. In the SAC, the Plaintiff asserts her legal remedies are inadequate to fully compensate her for all of Hershey's alleged behavior. The Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to establish she lacks an adequate remedy at law as to her claims for restitution. The Plaintiff first asserts her claims under the "unfair" prong of the UCL "sweep more broadly" than her claims under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA's omissions theories, and thus, her legal remedies are inadequate. She further alleges that she "may lack an adequate remedy at law, if for instance, damages resulting from their purchase of the Products is determined to be in an amount less than the premium price of the Products." However, Judge Battaglia opines, the Plaintiff's allegations do not show how restitution would go beyond the damages available to her. She fails to allege any specific facts showing that damages are inadequate or incomplete. However, the Court finds the Plaintiff may seek equitable relief in the form of an injunction under the UCL and FAL to the extent her claims are premised on alleged future harm. Here, Judge Battaglia says, the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the likelihood of future harm for which she has no adequate remedy at law, and is not barred from seeking injunctive relief for the same. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Hershey's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims--to the extent they are based upon Hershey's alleged omission--for equitable relief in the form of restitution, and denies the motion as to her claims for injunctive relief. Hershey next argues the Plaintiff's SAC fails to state a claim for breach of implied warranty because she cannot plausibly allege the Products she purchased were unfit for consumption. She counters she has added allegations that "many brands of dark chocolate bars test at levels far below that of the Hershey Products." In the SAC, the Plaintiff alleges the Products both (1) do not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, and (2) are not fit for the ordinary purposes for which the Products are used. Regarding the second allegation, Judge Battaglia finds the Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts that the chocolates she purchased were unfit for their "ordinary purpose" as food products, or were unfit for consumption, or were not merchantable or fit for use as chocolates. However, the Plaintiff pleads that many brands of dark chocolate bars test at levels far below that of the Hershey Products. Thus, on this basis, Judge Battaglia says the Plaintiff adequately alleges that Hershey's Products do not comply with the standards of quality, so as to pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Hershey's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Eva Grausz's SAC. The Plaintiff was allowed to file a third amended complaint on Feb. 8, 2024, which cures the pleading deficiencies identified in this Order. Hershey must file a responsive pleading no later than Feb. 22, 2024. The Plaintiff is cautioned that if the third amended complaint fails to cure these deficiencies, the Court will dismiss the defective claims without further leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5vyf29dfrom PacerMonitor.com. HILL'S PET: Misrepresents Grain-Free Dog Food Products, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a leading law firm in protecting consumers and small businesses against corporate fraud and unfair competition, recently announced it has filed a major class action lawsuit against Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive Co. and one of the country's largest manufacturers of grain-containing pet food products, as well as a group of academic veterinarians and organizations with financial ties to the company. According to Thomas Burt, a partner with Wolf Haldenstein, the $2.6 billion damages award sought in the case would be the largest in the history of the United States pet food industry. The suit, KetoNatural Pet Foods v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on February 6. It alleges that Hill's and the other defendants carried out a coordinated scheme to persuade American pet owners that the grain-free dog food products sold by many Hill's competitors all increase the risk and severity of a deadly canine heart disease called dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The scheme allegedly involved a wide range of malfeasance committed by the defendants, most notably fraudulently misrepresenting case data about DCM to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA spent more than five years conducting a widely publicized investigation into "a potential association" between grain-free dog foods and DCM, only to suspend further investigation updates last year after announcing that it had not found sufficient data to establish a relationship between DCM and the products under investigation. The suit alleges that the FDA's DCM investigation was fraudulently induced by Hill's-affiliated veterinarians at Tufts University and other major research institutions, all of which have received extensive funding from Hill's-affiliated entities. The veterinarians allegedly caused the FDA to take drastic action by flooding the agency with hundreds of DCM case reports that were intentionally chosen to overrepresent the commonality of grain-free diets among dogs suffering from the disease. The FDA's investigation received major media coverage in 2018 and 2019, sparking a panic over DCM that caused the market for grain-free pet foods to drop by billions of dollars. The suit alleges that Hill's and its co-conspirators then stoked the panic by making false statements about the scientific evidence surrounding DCM, both to the veterinary community and the general public, as well as by manipulating the language of academic papers, using front organizations to hide undisclosed payments to veterinary researchers and creating Facebook groups and websites to amplify misinformation and suppress dissent. According to the lawsuit, this scheme produced a shocking financial windfall for Hill's, a company that had been steadily losing market share to grain-free competitors in the years preceding the controversy: In the four years immediately preceding the launch of the FDA's investigation, Hill's lost 20 percent of its market share. In the five years since the investigation began it has been arguably the fastest growing pet food company in the country. According to a Reuters report, the case was filed on behalf of KetoNatural Pet Foods, a Utah-based pet food startup that specializes in manufacturing low-carbohydrate dog food products. KetoNatural is seeking class-action status for at least several hundred companies with combined annual revenues of more than $10 billion. KetoNatural said in the lawsuit that it had "cultivated reams of evidence" from customers who said they stopped buying its dog food over concerns about a purported linkage to DCM. According to Burt, pet food brands such as KetoNatural are just one of several discrete groups that have been harmed by Hill's and its co-conspirators. "We know that boutique pet food retailers and pet-owners around the country were also damaged by the false idea that grain-free pet foods increase the risk of canine DCM. As we continue to investigate potential claims against Hill's and its co-conspirators, we urge anyone who believes they have been harmed by the misconduct described in this suit to contact our offices." Hill's Pet Nutrition responded to a request for comment with the following statement: "Hill's Pet Nutrition operates with the utmost integrity in all aspects of our business. We believe the allegations are without merit, and we will defend our position vigorously." [GN] INFINITY MANAGEMENT: Manager 'Prey' on Tenants, Lawsuit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims Infinity Management and Investments and one of its property owners have violated state law by assessing tenants cleaning and damage charges for normal wear and tear. The 19-page lawsuit more specifically alleges that the property managers wrongfully retain tenants' security deposits—and even assess additional charges beyond the deposits—to cover ordinary wear and tear to paint and flooring in their units. According to the suit, such cleaning and damage charges are expressly prohibited by state laws that aim to protect tenants from "predatory" landlord practices. As the case tells it, Infinity Management specializes in managing properties that cater to low-income and senior tenants. Per the complaint, its apartment complexes—located throughout Montana, California, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota and Oregon—qualify for government subsidies under affordable housing programs such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Section 515 program. The filing contends that the defendants "prey on the poor and the elderly" in that the companies know that "few, if any, of their residents will seek legal redress" for the allegedly unlawful conduct. Their tenants—who are among the most vulnerable populations in their communities—typically lack access to resources needed to shine light on exploitative practices or enforce their rights under state law, the lawsuit relays. "[The defendants] know charges for ordinary wear and tear are illegal, and they know their tenants are the members of their communities least able to afford to pay those charges," the suit asserts. "They expect, however, that their tenants lack the sophistication and resources to hold them accountable for the illegal charges." To make matters worse, the case claims, the property managers, when a tenant's charges exceed their security deposits, send any unpaid amounts to collections. "This further degrades the financial health of the tenants by impacting their credit, which in turn makes access to credit more difficult and the cost of credit more expensive," the complaint adds. According to the filing, the plaintiff in April 2023 moved out of the Colorado Village Apartments, a complex located in Whitefish, Montana, and owned by co-defendant Whitefish Investment Group. Included in the list of estimated move-out charges that Infinity Management assessed the woman was a $260 fee for paint touch-ups and a $180 charge for carpet cleaning, the lawsuit says. In addition, the plaintiff claims Infinity Management unfairly sent her unpaid charges to a collection agency even though she had waited months for the company to issue her a document listing the final amount she owed. The suit notes that Infinity Management owns the following properties in Montana: Ashley Creek Court Apartments Aspen Place Apartments Colorado Village Apartments Columbia Arms Apartment Cottages At Edna Court Courtyard Apartments Crestview Apartments Depot Place Apartments Eagle Apartments Meadowlark Vista (Ronan) Maple Street Cottages Kalispell Senior Apartments Polson Landing Skyview Apartments Spring Creek Apartments Spring Creek Apartments 2 Sunny Slope Vista Apartments Superior Commons Apartments Teakettle Vista Apartments Teakettle Vista II Apartments Treasure Manor Apartments The Riverside Apartments The Cornerstone Treasure Manor Apartment Two Mile Vista Apartments Two Rivers Apartments Yellowstone Commons Apartments Westgate Senior Apartments Westwind Village Apartments The lawsuit looks to represent any residential tenants of any property managed by Infinity Management who, during the statute of limitations period, were charged any amount for normal wear and tear that is prohibited by state law. The suit adds that this covers those whose charges were in excess of the actual costs, even if charging for normal wear and tear is not prohibited by state law. [GN] JAF COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- PILAR BELENDEZ-DESHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAF COMMUNICATIONS INC. d/b/a THE MESSENGER, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00741 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2024) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. JAF COMMUNICATIONS INC. d/b/a THE MESSENGER is a telecommunications company that provides fiber optics, IPTV, electrical design, and construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com jar@raisnerroupinian.com KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Hit with Class Action Over Cyberattack ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that Keenan & Associates faces a proposed class action over an August 2023 cyberattack that compromised the personal and medical data of more than 1,500,000 people. The 49-page Keenan data breach lawsuit says the insurance consulting and brokerage firm detected "disruptions" on certain network servers on August 27, 2023. According to the amended complaint, a subsequent investigation revealed that an unauthorized third party had gained access to Keenan's computer systems at various times between roughly August 21 and August 27 and exfiltrated certain data from the network. Per the suit, the sensitive information compromised in the breach included individuals' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport numbers, general health data, driver's license numbers and health insurance details. The data breach lawsuit claims the incident stemmed directly from Keenan's failure to implement and follow "even the most basic" cybersecurity protocols to protect the private information in its care. To make matters worse, although the company purports to have discovered the cyberattack in August of last year, it waited until late January 2024 to begin notifying victims, the case points out. As the filing tells it, Keenan's allegedly negligent actions will have lifelong consequences on affected individuals. "[The plaintiff] and Class Members face an increased risk of identity theft, phishing attacks, and related cybercrimes because of the Data Breach," the complaint asserts. "Those impacted are under heightened and prolonged anxiety and fear, as they will be at risk for falling victim to cybercrimes for years to come." The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was compromised as a result of the Keenan & Associates data breach, including those who were sent notice of the incident on or around January 26, 2024. [GN] KROGER CO: Garland and Jacobs Sue Over Misleading Product Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHELSEA GARLAND AND LEROY JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00240-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2024), alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Act in connection with the Defendant's misleading product descriptions of Blueberry Fruit & Grain Cereal Bars. Allegedly, the Defendant promoted the said product as naturally-flavored and as made with real fruit. However, such descriptions are false, deceptive, and/or misleading, because this product uses artificial flavoring ingredients to create, simulate, resemble and reinforce its filling's blueberry taste. Headquartered in Ohio, The Kroger Co. is an in-store and online grocery retailer that sells leading national brands of products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED APC 600 W Broadway Ste 700 San Diego CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550-4005 Facsimile: (619) 550-4006 E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com LA PLACE: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ A proposed Settlement has been reached in a putative class action Dube c. Cooperative de services enfancefamille.org and Procureur general du Quebec (500-06-001148-218) relating to the La Place 0-5 data breach that occurred on May 8, 2021, when an unknown third-party was able to gain unauthorized access to certain customer data from the La Place 0-5 records ("Data Breach"). This proposed Settlement is subject to Court approval. The proposed settlement is on behalf of the following Settlement Class: The 8,589 persons in Quebec whose personal information was accessed and downloaded during the Data Breach which occurred on May 8, 2021; The Defendants in the class action are the Cooperative de services enfancefamille.org (hereinafter the "Cooperative") and the Procureur general du Quebec (hereinafter the "PGQ") (hereinafter collectively the "Defendants"). On February 1, 2024, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized the Class Action for settlement purposes only. AM I A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER? You may be a Settlement Class Member if you are one of the 8,589 persons in Quebec, whose personal information was accessed and downloaded in the Data Breach which occurred on or about May 8, 2021 (you may have received a letter, email or call from La Place 0-5 advising you that your information was compromised in the context of the Data Breach). WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Pursuant to the proposed Settlement, the Defendants will pay a total amount of $250,000 CAD (the "Cap"). This Cap will pay for all administration costs, notice costs and legal fees and disbursements, including all applicable taxes. The remainder (the "Net Cap") will be used toward the reimbursement of certain substantiated costs, losses and/or unreimbursed expenses made from May 8, 2021 to February 1, 2024 by Settlement Class Members who provide evidence to the effect that said losses were caused by the Data Breach and/or incurred as a result of the Data Breach or the receipt of the La Place 0-5 Notices (between May 14, 2021 and June 2, 2021), as accepted by the Claims Administrator (at its discretion) pursuant to the Distribution Protocol attached to the Settlement Agreement. Each Claimant may only make substantiated and documented monetary claims up to a maximum of $1,000 CAD per person (the Documentary Supported Claims will be reduced on a pro rata basis in case of lack of total funds in the Net Cap). HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID? As part of the settlement of this case, the defendants have agreed to pay class counsel fees in the amount of up to $75,000, plus applicable taxes, for their fees and $2,500 for their disbursements, subject to the Court's approval. This amount is payable out of the Cap. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ANY PORTION OF THESE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may (1) object to or comment on the Settlement; (2) exclude yourself from the Class Action (opt-out); or (3) do nothing. If you do not wish to be legally bound by the Class Action, you must exclude yourself from the Class Action (opt-out). To do so, you must complete and submit an Opt-Out Form to the Court by no later March 15, 2024. Anyone who opts out of the Class Action cannot object to or comment on the Settlement and may be eligible to pursue an individual claim. If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class Action and be bound by the Settlement, if approved by the Court. If you stay in the Class Action, you may object to or comment on the Settlement by submitting a written objection to the Court by no later than February 28, 2024. You have no obligation to object to or comment on the Settlement. WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED? The Superior Court of Quebec must be satisfied that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Approval Hearing will take place on March 19, 2024, at 9:30 A.M. in room 12.61 at the Montreal Courthouse located at 1 Notre-Dame St. East, Montreal, Quebec (or any other courtroom determined by the Court). You do not have to attend the hearing but you may do so if you wish. If you have submitted a written objection to the Court, you (or your lawyer) may present arguments with regards to the proposed Settlement. You do not have to do anything and you do not have to pay anything at all in order to participate in the Class Action and/or the proposed Settlement. You will not be asked to pay anything at any time. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If needed, Settlement Class Members can contact the Class Counsel, Lex Group Inc. [GN] LABORATORY CORP: Denies Access to Check-in Kiosks, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernie Pazanowski at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that blind patients have standing to sue Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings under California and federal disability discrimination laws for denying them access to the company's check-in kiosks, the Ninth Circuit said. The district court certified two classes, one under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and a nationwide class under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Affordable Care Act. LabCorp appealed the certifications, arguing that the plaintiffs didn't have standing under the Unruh Act, because named representative Julian Vargas didn't experience a cognizable injury. [GN] LOANDEPOT INC: Massaro and Taylor-Jones Sue Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH MASSARO and CRYSTAL TAYLOR-JONES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOANDEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00253-CAS-KES (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2024), asserts claims against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment in connection with the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's network. In addition, Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Defendant failed to properly implement appropriate data security practices. As a result, the Defendant's network was accessed by cybercriminals on or around January 8, 2024. The incident compromised the private information of roughly 16.6 million individuals, says the suit. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, LoanDepot Inc. is a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "LDI." The company provides mortgages and lending services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510)254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com MANITOBA: Chief Proposes Class Suit Over Treaty Agreements ----------------------------------------------------------- ca.news.yahoo.com reports that a Manitoba First Nation chief is joining a growing list of Indigenous communities that allege the federal government has violated treaty agreements by not increasing $5 annuity payments to keep up with inflation over the past 150 years. Waywayseecappo First Nation Chief Murray Clearsky is seeking class-action status for his claim against the federal government, filed with Manitoba Court of King's Bench on Jan. 26. He alleges the Crown breached and continues to breach its obligations under Treaty 4 by keeping $5 annuity payments to treaty members the same since the agreement was first signed in 1874, "causing the purchasing power of the annuities to dwindle to the point where it became only a token or symbolic sum," the statement of claim says. In a news release, Clearsky said the launch of his proposed class action is "vital in addressing the historical wrongs inflicted upon the Treaty 4 First Nations" and ensure that the Crown's promises to treaty members "are not just made, but honoured." Clearsky, who would be the lead plaintiff in the proposed class action, aims to represent 33 First Nations in Treaty 4, which spans about 195,000 square kilometres across present-day southeastern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and west-central Manitoba. Murray Clearsky, shown in a file photo, is the chief of Waywayseecappo First Nation. (Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs) The suit names the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant. None of the allegations have been proven in court, and a statement of defence has not been filed. In a statement sent to CBC News, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said the department is reviewing the statement of claim. "Canada recognizes that more needs to be done to renew the treaty relationship and remains open to looking at ways to advance this important work," said spokesperson Suzanna Su. Last year, three other First Nations in Manitoba — Lake Manitoba First Nation in Treaty 2, Fisher River First Nation in Treaty 5 and Roseau River Anishinaabe First Nation in Treaty 1 — each filed similar lawsuits. Other chiefs in Treaty 4 have also filed lawsuits in the Federal Court of Canada. Canada 'continues to break' treaty promises: suit The Crown entered into Treaty 4 with various Saulteaux, Cree and other First Nations in 1874, the lawsuit says. The terms of the treaty included annual payments to all members of the First Nations that signed or adhered to the treaty and their descendants. The payments were intended to compensate the members of the First Nations for the loss of exclusive use of their territory and to ensure the well-being of future generations. The amount was set at $5 per member each year, which in 1874 was an amount that "commanded material purchasing power and was not merely a token or symbolic sum," according to the statement of claim. It says the First Nations were of the understanding that the annuities would reflect the "same degree of purchasing power" as when the treaty was first signed. "The First Nations parties to Treaty 4 did not and could not have known that the real value of a cash payment of $5 in 1874 would be drastically reduced in real terms with the passage of time," the suit says. "The parties to Treaty 4 never intended for the annuities to be frozen in time." The suit alleges that by failing to increase the annuity payments, the federal government has allowed the payments to become "effectively worthless," meaning "Canada has broken, and continues to break, its promise to beneficiaries of Treaty 4." The proposed class action is seeking $100 million in damages, compensation for "unpaid or underpaid" annuities, and changes to the annuity agreements so that the payments are adjusted regularly, along with other relief. [GN] MARYMOUND GROUP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Extreme Repeated Abuse --------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Pindera at innipegfreepress.com reports that a man and woman have filed a proposed class action lawsuit over alleged "extreme" physical and sexual abuse they say they suffered while in the care of the Marymound group home in Winnipeg in the 1990s. Marymound, which is on Scotia Street, is a group home and school that provides social services and education to youths, the majority of whom are Indigenous. Many of them are wards of child and family services agencies. Marymound opened as a girls reformatory in 1911. "For the children living and attending school at Marymound, the experience has been one of persistent, unchanging and unyielding abuse," the statement of claim alleges. The lawsuit, filed in 2023 in Manitoba Court of King's Bench by Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky LLP on behalf of the man and woman, identified as John and Jane Doe in the documents, names Marymound, its parent organization the Reseau Compassion Network and the Manitoba government as defendants. The plaintiffs issued a media release to notify people who may want to join the proposed class action. That includes people who were at the facility between 1951 and the current day. The lawsuit has yet to be certified as a class action. None of the defendants has filed a statement of defence. The man, born in 1980, attended Marymound as a day student from 1993 to 1995 while he was in his teens and was involved in the criminal system. He alleges he faced "extreme repeated abuse," including sexual and physical abuse from staff and students. The woman, who is Metis and was born in 1978, resided at the facility from 1992 and 1995, having been placed there by a CFS agency. She alleges she suffered "extreme repeated abuse," including sexual assaults on numerous occasions. She has since developed severe drug addictions and began performing sex work, court documents say. The lawsuit alleges that youths were subjected to excessive physical punishment as a result of poor training and a lack of resources. That includes sexual assault, beatings and the use of solitary confinement for hours or days at a time. The claim alleges children who lived at the facility were locked in at night and had to defecate without access to toilets, while others were starved. The claim alleges Marymound did not have policies or systems in place to screen employees or report abuse and that the abuses committed there were done so openly. "Class members who attempted to report their abuse were mocked, denigrated, or ignored, and in many case subjected to increasingly brutal retaliation," the claim alleges. Further, the suit claims the provincial government had direct knowledge of systemic failures and abuses at Marymound. The claim alleges youths, their parents and staff tried to report abuse to higher levels of management at Marymound and to the families department, to no avail. [GN] MINDGEEK USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sex-Trafficking Ventures ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court"). The lawsuit is known as Jane Doe v. MindGeek USA Incorporated, MindGeek S.A.R.L., MG Freesites, LTD, d/b/a Pornhub, MG Freesites II, LTD, MG Content RT Limited, and 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc. d/b/a MindGeek, No. SACV 21-00338-CJC (ADSx). The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf of a "class," or group of people, that could include you. Read below for a summary of your rights and options before an upcoming trial in August 2024. What is this lawsuit about? Plaintiff claims that MindGeek USA Incorporated, MindGeek S.A.R.L., MG Freesites, LTD, d/b/a Pornhub, MG Freesites II, LTD, MG Content RT Limited, and 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc. d/b/a MindGeek (collectively, "Defendants") systematically participated in sex-trafficking ventures involving tens of thousands of children by receiving, distributing, and profiting from droves of child sexual abuse material ("CSAM") on the websites Pornhub.com, Pornhubpremium.com, Redtube.com, Redtubepremium.com, YouPorn.com, YouPornpremium.com, Tube8.com, Mofosex.com, ExtremeTube.com, Spankwire.com, Keezmovies.com, Thumbzilla.com, and XTube.com. Defendants deny any wrongdoing. The Court has not decided who is right or wrong. There is no money available now, and no guarantee there will be. However, your legal rights are affected, and you have a choice to make now. Am I part of the Class? Class: All persons who were under the age of 18 when they appeared in a video or image that has been uploaded or otherwise made available for viewing on any website owned or operated by MindGeek, including Pornhub.com, Pornhubpremium.com, Redtube.com, Redtubepremium.com, YouPorn.com, YouPornpremium.com, Tube8.com, Mofosex.com, ExtremeTube.com, Spankwire.com, Keezmovies.com, Thumbzilla.com, and XTube.com, from February 19, 2011, through the present. California Subclass: Members of the Class residing in California who were under the age of 18 when they appeared in a video or image that has been uploaded or otherwise made available for viewing on any website owned or operated by MindGeek, including Pornhub.com, Pornhubpremium.com, Redtube.com, Redtubepremium.com, YouPorn.com, YouPornpremium.com, Tube8.com, Mofosex.com, ExtremeTube.com, Spankwire.com, Keezmovies.com, Thumbzilla.com, and XTube.com, from February 19, 2011, through the present. What are my Options? You can do nothing or exclude yourself. Do Nothing. By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of getting money or benefits that may come from a trial or a settlement. But you give up any rights to sue Defendants separately about the same legal claims in this lawsuit. You will be bound by the result of this lawsuit. Ask to be Excluded. If a Class Member wishes to be excluded from this class action, they may fill out and return the Exclusion Request Form available on www.MindGeekClassActionLitigation.com. If you ask to be excluded from this lawsuit and money or benefits are later awarded, you will not share in those benefits. But you keep any rights to sue Defendants separately about the same legal claims in this lawsuit. You will not be bound by the result of this lawsuit. The Exclusion Request Form may be submitted electronically or through physical mail. Exclusion Request Forms sent electronically may be sent by email to info@MindGeekClassActionLitigation.com or electronically through www.MindGeekClassActionLitigation.com. Exclusion Request Forms sent by physical mail must be mailed to: MindGeek Class Action Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, Exclusion Requests, P.O. Box 91491, Seattle, WA 98111. The deadline to submit your Exclusion Request Form electronically or by physical mail is April 22, 2024. The Trial. A trial is scheduled for August 2024. The Court appointed the law firm of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. to represent Class Members as Class Counsel. You do not need to attend the trial. Class Counsel will present the case for Plaintiff and the Class, and lawyers for the Defendants will present on their behalf. You or your own lawyer are welcome to come at your own expense. Questions? This Notice is a summary of the lawsuit and the proceedings. You can get additional information by visiting www.MindGeekClassCctionLitigation.com, calling 844-566-0107, emailing info@MindGeekClassActionLitigation.com, or writing the Administrator at MindGeek Class Action Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91491, Seattle, WA 98111. You can also call Class Counsel at 1-310-789-3100. Please do not contact the Court.[GN] MINNESOTA: Daywitt Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kenneth Daywitt, et al., filed an appeal from court rulings entered in the lawsuit entitled Kenneth Daywitt, David Jannetta, Steven Hogy, Merlin Adolphson, Michael Whipple, Peter Lonergan, as and others similarly situated v. Jodi Harpestead, DHS Commissioner; Marshall Smith; Nancy Johnston; Jim Berg; Jannine Hebert; Kevin Moser; Terry Kniesel; Ray Ruotsalainen; in their individual and official capacities, Case No. 0:20-cv-01743-NEB-BRT, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Pro se Plaintiffs, civilly committed clients of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, brought this lawsuit on August 10, 2020 alleging that MSOP's restrictions on clients' Internet use violate Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The Plaintiffs retained an expert to support their claims. The Defendants moved to exclude Plaintiffs' expert, and both parties moved for summary judgment. In a Report and Recommendation dated July 28, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended excluding Plaintiffs' expert, denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Because Plaintiffs object to the R&R, the Court reviewed it de novo under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After a de novo review, the Court overruled the objection and accepted the R&R through an Order signed by Judge Nancy E. Brasel on September 28, 2023. This action, hence, was dismissed with prejudice. Judgment was also entered accordingly. The appellate case is captioned Kenneth Daywitt, et al v. Jodi Harpstead, et al, Case No: 24-1138, filed in United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 24, 2024. Plaintiffs-Appellants Kenneth Daywitt, et al., appear pro se. Defendants-Appellees Jodi Harpstead, DHS Commissioner; in their individual and official capacities, et al., are represented by: Emily Beth Anderson, Esq. Aaron Edward Winter, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127 Telephone: (651) 296-9412 MOOMOO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Biometric Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- cookcountyrecord.com reports that Moomoo Technologies Inc., the operator of the online financial trading app Moomoo, is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly violating Illinois' stringent biometrics privacy law. The plaintiff, Christine Mouser, accuses the company of unlawfully collecting, storing, and using users' facial geometry during the ID verification process when registering for the app. According to the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court on Feb. 2, Mouser claims that this practice is a violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which allegedly requires companies to inform users in writing if they are collecting or storing biometric identifiers or information. It also allegedly mandates that companies disclose the specific purpose and length of term for which such data is being collected and used. The plaintiff alleges that Moomoo did not comply with these requirements. The lawsuit seeks potentially huge damages under BIPA for these supposed violations. The law permits plaintiffs to demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted the BIPA law to define individual violations as each time a user's biometrics are scanned over a period of the preceding five years, not just the first time. The plaintiffs seek to expand the lawsuit to include every Illinois resident who held a Moomoo account in the past five years. The lawsuit does not estimate how many people could be included in the class action, saying only they believe it is more than 1,000. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Michael L. Fradin, of Skokie; and James L. Simon, of Independence, Ohio. [GN] NEW YORK AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andina Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY ANDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK AUTO OF LIC INC. (DBA NEW YORK AUTO REPAIR); and KASAM SHAHZAD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00720 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 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 Andina was employed by the Defendants as a mechanic. NEW YORK AUTO OF LIC INC. (DBA NEW YORK AUTO REPAIR) is a mechanic and auto repair shop. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 203-2417 NISSAN MOTOR: Proposed Wage Class Action Appeal Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ Tre'Vaughn Howard at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that two former Florida Nissan dealership technicians failed to convince the Eleventh Circuit to allow their proposed class wage suit against Nissan North America after the court said the company isn't a joint employer. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the company against Jose Ayala and Jeff Santos, who brought a proposed collective and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs alleged that Nissan was liable as a joint employer for underpaid labor since it determined how much it gives dealerships for warranty work.[GN] OSWEGO COUNTY, NY: Parker Files Appeal in Suit v. Sheriff --------------------------------------------------------- A petition for appeal has been filed against Don Hilton, in his capacity as Sheriff for Oswego County. The lower court case is captioned as Joseph Parker vs. Don Hilton, Case No. EFC-2023-1580, in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department. The case type is stated as Special Proceeding - Other (Declaratory Judgment). The suit is assigned to the Hon. Gregory R. Gilbert. The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Parker vs. Don Hilton, Case No. CA 24-00159, in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on January 24, 2024.[BN] PROMEDICA EMPLOYMENT: Williams Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled JANIE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROMEDICA EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2306597, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk of the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00190 to the proceeding. PROMEDICA EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC provides a variety of care management services, including evaluating nursing homes and assisted living facilities. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Amy K. Todd, Esq. Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq. Charles J. Ureña, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 Email: atodd@littler.com blmccarthy@littler.com curena@littler.com READING INTERNATIONAL: Berryman Balks at Unfair Ticket Price Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- HALEY BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00750 (Feb. 1, 2024) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings the action in response to the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing its subscribers' personally identifiable information—including a record of every video clip they view and every movie ticket they purchase—to Facebook without consent. The Plaintiff also brings this action in response to the Defendant's practice of failing to disclose the total cost of tickets, including any ancillary fees, to movie screens taking place in the state of New York. The Defendant quote movie ticket purchasers on its website a fee-less price, only to later ambush them with a $2.19 service charge per ticket at checkout, the suit says. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC. owns and operates cinemas and develops, owns, and operates real estate assets. The Company develops, owns, and operates multiplex cinemas and commercial real estates. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com RENTGROW INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Szewczyk v. RentGrow, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10734 (D. Mass., Filed May 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order granting consent motion for extension of time to file opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. RentGrow provides resident screening services to property owners and managers.[CC] ROBINSON MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Archer Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN ARCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINSON MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00015-ACL (E.D. Mo., Feb. 2, 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. Plaintiff Archer was employed by the Defendant as a laborer. ROBINSON MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. doing business as Robinson Construction Company, provides construction services. The Company offers design-build, concrete, piping, steel installation, general contracting, and site development services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com ROMEO POWER: Court Certifies Securities Suit, $14.9M Deal Proposed ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE ROMEO POWER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:21-cv-03362-LGS SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between October 5, 2020 and August 16, 2021 inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded: (i) RMG Acquisition Corp. ("RMG") Class A common stock or Romeo Power, Inc. ("Romeo") common stock; (ii) RMG warrants or Romeo warrants; and/or (iii) RMG units, and were injured thereby (the "Settlement Class")1: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $14,900,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A telephonic hearing will be held on July 10, 2024 at 3:45 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1106, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Individual Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. The call-in number is (888) 363-4749, and the access code is 558-3333. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against making audio or video recordings of court proceedings. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.RomeoPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., PO Box 3719, Portland, OR 97208-3719, toll-free 877-915-1127. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than May 29, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 19, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Individual Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June 19, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, the Individual Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (888) 773-9224 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Epiq Systems, Inc. PO Box 3719 Portland, OR 97208-3719 Tel: 877-915-1127 www.RomeoPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com By Order of the Court [GN] SCHNADER HARRISON: Faces Class Suit Over Mishandled Pension Plans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that a Philadelphia-based law firm that shuttered last year after nearly 90 years in business has been hit with a class action claiming it unlawfully used pension contributions to help run the firm and pay its shareholding partners, harming other partners and employees. Plaintiff Jo Bennett sued Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis in U.S. federal court in Philadelphia, claiming the defunct firm violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Bennett, who was a non-ownership partner at the firm, lodged her lawsuit, opens new tab on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of Schnader Harrison's retirement and savings plan, which was regulated by the federal employee retirement income law. Representatives for the firm, including its former chairman and chief executive David Smith, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Bennett, Adam Garner, called the allegations "serious" and said the case raises "important questions of fiduciary misconduct." Bennett was a partner at the firm from 2016 to 2023. She now leads the labor and employment team at 70-partner law firm Culhane Meadows Haughian & Walsh. Schnader had offices in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, California and other areas prior to its move in August to wind down. According to the complaint, Schnader in 2022 and 2023 mishandled employee contributions to the plan and "commingled the withheld employee contributions with the firm's general assets." Employee contributions were used to fund law firm operations and to make payment distributions to equity partners as the firm faltered, the lawsuit alleged. "At the same time the equity partners were continuing to pay themselves, the firm was struggling to meet its other financial obligations," Bennett's lawsuit said. The lawsuit estimated a class size of several hundred people, including more than 130 plan participants. The case is Jo Bennett v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis et al, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For plaintiff: Adam Garner of The Garner Firm; and R. Joseph Barton of Barton & Downes For defendants: No appearances yet [GN] SEATGEEK INC: Faces Suit Over Breach of Ticket Price Listings ------------------------------------------------------------- completemusicupdate.com reports that US ticketing company SeatGeek has been sued over allegations it is in breach of New York laws regarding the listing of ticket prices. A new class action lawsuit filed against the company says it has been "improperly charging consumers on their website in violation of the New York Arts And Cultural Affairs Law". The dispute brings the spotlight back onto the practice employed by some ticketing sites of obscuring the true cost of tickets by adding fees at the final stage of each transaction, rather than declaring the full cost upfront. There has been a lot of discussion over the last year about introducing a new US-wide law that would force ticketing platforms to be fully transparent upfront about the full costs of any ticket being sold. A number of ticketing companies have actually backed such a law, though formal proposals are still working their way through US Congress. However, some US states have their own ticketing regulations. And the new lawsuit explains that, in New York, a law came into effect in 2022 that says "any platform that facilitates the sale or resale of tickets" must "disclose the total cost of the ticket, inclusive of all ancillary fees that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket, and disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner the portion of the ticket price stated in dollars that represents a service charge, or any other fee or surcharge to the purchaser". "Such disclosure of the total cost and fees", it goes on, "shall be displayed in the ticket listing prior to the ticket being selected for purchase" and "the price of the ticket shall not increase during the purchase process". SeatGeek is not doing this, the lawsuit claims, adding that ticket buyers using SeatGeek are "initially quoted one price, only to later be shown the true total ticket, which includes an additional 'fees'. These added fees are only presented after consumers select their ticket option and pass through multiple screens in the purchase process". Three New York-based ticket buyers are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, though it seeks class action status, so that a judgement against SeatGeek would benefit other affected ticket-buyers too. The lawsuit states that "defendant sold at least 100,000 tickets through its website during the applicable class period and is liable for a minimum of $5 in statutory damages for each ticket sold". As a result "the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest, fees, and costs". Rules about how ticket prices are listed on ticketing platforms differ around the world. In the UK the Advertising Standards Authority's rules state that "if a booking fee is not optional, ticket prices must be stated inclusive of any booking fee".[GN] SENIOR LIFE: Harris et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Harris, Dianne Sullivan, and Virginia Cole individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Senior Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00035 (E.D. Wash., February 5, 2024) seeks to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. One of the Plaintiffs, Harris, has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since approximately January 26, 2022. However, she received unsolicited phone calls from the Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the TCPA by using artificial or pre-recorded voice messages to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff Harris and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express written consent. Headquartered in Thomasville, GA, Senior Life Insurance Company conducts business in servicing final expenses. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com SOLACIUM HOLDINGS: Spindel Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled SERENITY SPINDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLACIUM HOLDINGS LLC DBA EMBARK BEHAVIORAL HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV426048, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk of the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00552 to the proceeding. SOLACIUM HOLDINGS LLC DBA EMBARK BEHAVIORAL HEALTH is an emotionally disturbed childrens' residential treatment facility (organization) practicing in White Haven, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Chad D. Greeson, Esq. Helen Braginsky, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, Suite 600 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Email: cgreeson@littler.com hbraginsky@littler.com TAMARA LICH: Convoy Organizers Want Police Board to Pay in Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kristy Nease at CBC News reports that if downtown Ottawa residents and businesses who say they suffered through loud honking and diesel fumes during the self-styled "Freedom Convoy" are awarded any money in their ongoing class action against organizers of the 2022 protest, the convoy organizers want Ottawa's police board to pay it. It's a potentially big tab for the Ottawa Police Services Board that governs the force and approves its budgets. The plaintiffs in the Zexi Li class action, which has not yet been certified, are seeking $290 million. Lawyers for Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and 10 other defendants in the class action have filed a third-party claim against the police board. It was issued by Superior Court. They allege the police response to the protest was negligent and that because of the force's negligence, the police board should be on the hook for any losses or damages. They claim that except for "a small number" of fewer than 40 tractor-trailers on Wellington Street in front of Parliament Hill, there was no plan to clog Ottawa's downtown with vehicles. According to the claim, it was Ottawa police who directed them to park on residential downtown streets. Police 'decided to change the plan' The original plan was to stage the vehicles on Wellington and on "lengthy designated stretches" of the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway (now renamed Kichi Zībī Mīkan) to the west and the Sir George-etienne Cartier Parkway to the east, the claim states. "But for some reason, the Ottawa police decided to change the plan," said James Manson, one of the lawyers representing the convoy organizers. "And so our argument will be that if that had not taken place, if the trucks had parked where they all had understood they were going to park, then there wouldn't have been any trucks downtown, and therefore there couldn't have been a nuisance caused the way that the plaintiffs are claiming it." The third-party claim also alleges police were negligent when they: -- Became overwhelmed with the number of vehicles despite organizers' efforts to warn them. -- Failed to read intelligence reports, watch the news or review other reporting that "widely recognized the size and scale of the protest (or, that police were aware but chose to disregard it). -- Failed to mount an adequate plan. -- Put "inexperienced officers in leadership positions." -- And did not direct vehicles to leave downtown "when it became known they would not leave" on their own (or that police didn't do so in a timely manner). -- Both the Ottawa Police Services Board and Ottawa Police Service declined to comment. The board has 20 days to respond to the third-party claim once it's served, which could take up to 30 days. 'An Interesting Legal Manoeuvre' Paul Champ, the lawyer representing Zexi Li and the other plaintiffs in the class action, thinks the arguments in the claim are a bit rich. It's true that Ottawans were angry with police during the protest and repeatedly said they felt the force wasn't protecting them, he said. "But I'm not sure if it necessarily is the place of the protesters themselves to say, 'Well, [police] made me do it,'" Champ added. "We did see a little bit of that in the Public Order Emergency Commission, that the police had in fact escorted them downtown and given them areas to park. And no doubt the people of Ottawa were very upset about that, so it's an interesting legal manoeuvre. "I'm not sure if it necessarily flies to blame someone else for your own unlawful activity, but we'll see how the Ottawa police respond." As for the allegation that police didn't direct protesters to leave, Champ said it's "patently untrue" that no one did. "I don't think it could have been any clearer that these these folks were behaving unlawfully and that they had passed the threshold of a peaceful assembly," he said. Manson, the lawyer for the convoy organizers, said he's not aware of any evidence suggesting Ottawa police "directed the truckers to leave in the same way that they directed them to park," and that if such evidence exists, police can raise it in discovery if they choose. [GN] TATA CONSULTANCY: Ross Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MOISES ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 23STCV31760, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-798 to the proceeding. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. is an Indian multinational information technology services and consulting company headquartered in Mumbai. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam R. Rosenthal, Esq. Rachel N. Schuster, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Telephone: (858) 720-8900 Facsimile: (358) 509-3691 Email: arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com rschuster@sheppardmullin.com TETRA TECH: Plaintiff Reaches Settlement in Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- finance.yahoo.com reports that the Court-appointed representative of a class of shareholders of Gatos Silver, Inc. ("Gatos Silver") has reached a settlement with Tetra Tech, Inc. ("Tetra Tech") in a securities class action in Canada. The settlement class is defined as all persons and entities (other than certain "excluded persons"), wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who: purchased Gatos Silver securities under Gatos Silver's Canadian prospectuses filed in October 2020 and July 2021 and in the distributions to which they related; and acquired Gatos Silver securities during the period from October 28, 2020 until January 25, 2022 at 6:52 p.m. Eastern Standard Time ("Class Period") on any Canadian exchange (including, without limitation, the Toronto Stock Exchange) or any Canadian alternative trading system. The class action was commenced following Gatos's disclosure in late January 2022 that the mineral reserve statement for its Cerro Los Gatos mine in Mexico was affected by error and materially overstated. The Plaintiff alleges that, among other things, the materially overstated mineral reserve statement was incorporated in Gatos's offering and continuous disclosure documents released throughout the Class Period. Tetra Tech is alleged to have prepared the overstated mineral reserve statement but disputes its alleged involvement in any such overstatement. Tetra Tech has agreed to pay CAD$1,000,000 to settle the claims made against it in the class action. In connection with the settlement, the action will be dismissed against two employees of Tetra Tech who were also named as Defendants. The settlement and dismissal of the action against the Tetra Tech defendants is subject to the approval of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If approved by the Court, the settlement will settle, extinguish, and bar all claims relating in any way to or arising out of the proceeding against the Tetra Tech defendants. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and Tetra Tech does not admit any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement is a partial settlement of the claims asserted in the action. The Plaintiff has separately reached a settlement-in-principle with the remaining Defendants, which is subject to the negotiation of a definitive agreement. If a final settlement agreement is reached with those Defendants, further notice will be provided to Class Members regarding that settlement, as ordered by the Court. The class is represented by the law firms of Siskinds LLP, Eighty-One West Law PC, and CFM Lawyers LLP (together, "Class Counsel"). Class Counsel is seeking the approval of legal fees not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Amount (i.e. $250,000), plus disbursements and applicable taxes. A hearing to approve the settlement will be held on April 10, 2024, during which the Court will consider whether the proposed settlement and Class Counsel's fees and disbursements are fair and reasonable and should be approved. Class Members who want to opt out of the settlement must do so by no later than April 9, 2024. Class Members who wish to object to or comment on the settlement or Class Counsel's fee and disbursement request should do so by no later than March 20, 2024. If the settlement is approved, all Class Members (who have not opted out) will be bound by it. For complete details regarding the proposed settlement, including how to opt out or object/comment, please consult the long-form notice available, in English and French, on Class Counsel's websites at https://www.cfmlawyers.ca/active-litigation/gatos-silver-inc-tsx-gato/ and https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/gatos-silver/. The manner of distribution of the settlement proceeds will be determined by further Court order. A further notice will be issued to Class Members when the settlement proceeds are available for distribution. [GN] TGC LLC: Huang et al. Sue Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEFF HUANG, JIMMY CHANG, and MITCHELL SKLARE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TGC, LLC, GOLFNOW, LLC, and NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC d/b/a GOLFPASS, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00270 (M.D. Fla., February 6, 2024), arises from the Defendants' unlawful disclosure of their subscribers' personally identifiable information in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Allegedly, the Defendants used a "Pixel" tracking cookie on the GolfPass website to disclose to Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a Facebook, Inc. a record of its digital subscribers' identities side-by-side with the specific videos those digital subscribers requested or obtained. They did so without their subscribers' informed, written consent, says the suit. Headquartered in Orlando, FL, TGC, LLC, doing business as the Golf Channel, is a Delaware limited liability company that operates the website, www.golfpass.com, which offers pre-recorded video materials focusing on golf. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Levin, Esq. Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 Facsimile: (305) 676-4443 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com brandon@levinlawpa.com sarah@levinlawpa.com - and - Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq. DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 375-1920 Facsimile: (305) 374-1961 E-mail: jkaplan@dkrpa.com TJX COMPANIES: Bourgeois Appeals Case Dismissal Order to 1st Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff JODI BOURGEOIS filed an appeal from the District Court's Final Judgment entered on January 5, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled Jodi Bourgeois, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00354-PB, in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The suit was previously removed from the Superior Court of the State of New Hampshire, County of Rockingham to the District of New Hampshire on July 14, 2023. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as class representative to recover damages for alleged violations of New Hampshire's Driver Privacy Act. The complaint alleges that TJX violates the DPA because it requires customers to release the personal information on their driver's licenses when they are "seeking the return of an item without showing a receipt (during a non-receipted return)" or "seeking to utilize in-store credit (i.e., via stored value cards) conferred upon the completion of non-receipted returns (upon wishing to complete 'in-store credit transactions')" and knowingly discloses the information to its fraud prevention vendor The Retail Equation. On August 4, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which the Court granted on January 5, 2024 through a Judgment signed by Judge Daniel J. Lynch. The appellate case is captioned as JODI BOURGEOIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee., Case No. 24-1086, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 23, 2024.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JODI BOURGEOIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 E-mail: mgirardi@bursor.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over False Cost Savings of Maintenance Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- Singleton Schreiber filed a class action lawsuit in California federal court alleging Toyota Motor Sales greatly misrepresented the cost savings of maintenance plans to consumers. The suit alleges the value of the maintenance plans were inflated and designed by Toyota to cost consumers more than if they had simply paid for repairs and maintenance out of pocket. According to the release, the ToyotaCare Plus brochure lays out the timeframe for regular service visits to the dealership for maintenance. Toyota sold the package by telling consumers they would save hundreds of dollars. The brochure claimed regular service visits cost $100 and any major service visits would cost $400. They represented the total value of their maintenance package at $1,900 and sold it to consumers for $1025. Teresa Solis paid for the ToyotaCare Plus package cost of $1,025 thinking she would be saving $875 in the long run. However, as time went on it became quickly apparent to Ms. Solis and other consumers that the $1,900 value was far from accurate. For example, when she took her car into the Carlsbad Toyota dealership, certain work was being performed ahead of schedule or skipped altogether. According to the complaint: In January of 2022, Ms. Solis brought her car in for a 20,000-mile regular service but Toyota did not perform the 20,000-mile service and instead performed the service scheduled for 30,000 miles. The bill for this "major service" was roughly $200, not the $400 she was told it would be. In July of 2022, when she brought the vehicle in for the 30,000 major service, she was given the 35,000 regular service and the bill came to $30 (not the $100 she was sold). Had she paid out of pocket, it would have been just $43. Ultimately, Ms. Solis realized she would have only paid between $800 and $900 – less than the total price she paid for the Maintenance Plan. The complaint alleges this overstating of the maintenance package value is a consistent theme for countless car-buyers who were sold the same plan, which was Toyota's intent to maximize profits by implementing the program. "Not only were these people sold a bill of goods, they had to pay interest on it," said attorney Chris Rodriguez of Singleton Schreiber. "These plans are packaged into the car loan, so that $1,025 Ms. Solis paid is actually quite a bit more than that over the course of the loan. We're bringing this suit to hold Toyota accountable for the ways in which these people were ripped off." The case is Teresa Solis et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S. District Court Southern District of California, Case No. 24CV0251 DMS DEB. About Singleton Schreiber With over 50 attorneys and 277 support staff and offices in California, Hawai'i, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, Gerald Singleton and his team have represented more than 20,000 victims of utility fires and recovered approximately $2.5 billion in settlements and verdicts for its clients. The firm is also a premier personal injury firm led by Brett Schreiber, having obtained top results for clients, including more than $100 million in verdicts and settlements in the last 12 months alone.[GN] TUBI INC: Loses Bid to Force Privacy Class Action to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that online streaming platform Tubi Inc. must face allegations it shared consumers' video-viewing histories with third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act in federal court rather than before an arbitrator. Plaintiff Sylvia Campos wasn't bound by the mandatory arbitration agreement in Tubi's terms of service because the company couldn't show that Campos accepted the agreement through her interactions with the Tubi mobile app, Judge John J. Tharp Jr. of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said.[GN] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: High Court Denies Appeal in Takata Airbag Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Zachariah at drive.com.au reports that the High Court has struck down a class-action appeal, which was seeking to receive compensation from Volkswagen in the wake of the Takata scandal - which resulted in millions of cars being recalled for potentially fatal airbags. The plaintiff had sought to challenge a previous ruling which determined the risk from the Takata airbags fitted to his Volkswagen was "merely speculative," according to website Lawyerly. As reported by Drive in September 2021, the class action against Volkswagen had claimed the Takata airbags - which were fitted to an estimated 100 million cars globally, in models from two dozen brands - were not "fit for purpose" under Australian Consumer Law. It's understood Volkswagen had replaced the potentially faulty airbag in the plaintiff's car in 2019 at no cost to him, as part of a precautionary recall. The NSW Supreme Court judge concluded the plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit had not reasonably established that the Takata airbag in his Volkswagen had degraded in such a way as to become dangerous - nor had it injured him or failed to inflate - telling the court: "There is thus no evidence, in fact, the airbag in his would not have deployed as intended." The judge explained the plaintiff was "only entitled to damages for the loss that he has actually suffered". The Supreme Court later ruled the plaintiff and the litigation funder which financed the lawsuit were liable for Volkswagen's legal defence costs. In March 2021, government authorities announced more than 4.1 million faulty Takata airbags had been replaced in Australia, across 3.06 million cars - representing 99.9 per cent of vehicles delivered locally with the potentially-deadly airbags. By November 2022, that figure has increased to 100 per cent - excluding vehicles which had been written off, scrapped, or had been unregistered for more than two years. It's estimated 36 people have died around the world - with more than 350 seriously injured - as a result of the Takata airbags, which it was discovered could degrade over time and either rupture or expel shrapnel at the driver or passenger when inflated. The latest decision by the High Court to refuse the appeal brings the class action - which was first filed in 2017 - to an end.[GN] W.E. WANG CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.E. WANG CORP (DBA KIN'D RESTAURANT); AE SIRIWAN; NITIPOT TUMRONGWISAWA; and JADE KING, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00649 (E.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 Morales was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen assistant. W.E. WANG CORP (DBA KIN'D RESTAURANT) operates a restaurant in Queens, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 203-2417 WENDY'S COMPANY: Bazzett Sues Over Violation of PUMP Act -------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA BAZZETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WENDY'S COMPANY, QUALITY IS OUR RECIPE, LLC; YCD ENTERPRISES II, LLC; and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-217 D/B/A WENDY'S, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00412-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 1, 2024) alleges violation of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants deprived her of her rights as a nursing mother guaranteed by the PUMP Act to a clean and secure space to pump milk for her infant child. She was forced to pump in the "crew room," an open room at the back of the restaurant for employees to take breaks, eat meals and store personal belongings. Defendants failed to provide her with a secure, private space and reasonable breaks to pump. As a result, the Plaintiff experienced a reduction in her milk supply for her new baby. This reduction and the lack of accommodation provided by the Defendants have caused the Plaintiff to experience embarrassment, anguish, personal hardship, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress, says the suit. THE WENDY'S COMPANY, QUALITY IS OUR RECIPE, LLC operates fast-food restaurants. The Company owns, operates, and franchises fast-food restaurants located throughout countries that include the United States, Singapore, the Middle East and North Africa, the Russian Federation, the Eastern Caribbean, Argentina, the Philippines, and Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Wiest, Esq. CHRIS WIEST, ATTY. AT LAW, PLLC 50 E. Rivercenter Blvd, Ste. 1280 Covington, Ky 41011 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com - and - Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: lconsidine@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com ZEROCARB INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Crosson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ARETHA CROSSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEROCARB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 503401/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Feb. 2, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.zerocarblyfe.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. ZEROCARB, INC. creates and produces a range of zero-carb bakery products, with and without gluten, low in sugar and carbs, and high in protein. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com [*] District Court Dismisses FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing ------------------------------------------------------------ JD Supra reports that recently, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging that a debt collector's (defendant) collection notice violated the FDCPA by including two different balances absent any explanation, leaving plaintiff confused and unable to pay the debt. Plaintiff also alleged she suffered emotional harm and expended time and money as a consequence of defendant's letter. The district court held that plaintiff's "mere" allegations of wasted time, resources, and efforts after receiving the collection letter do not establish injury-in-fact. Furthermore, the allegations do not support standing because "the burdens of bringing a lawsuit cannot be the sole basis for standing." Additionally, in response to claims of emotional harms, the district court found that the allegations are "virtually identical to those that have been rejected in other similar FDCPA cases." Ultimately, the district court found that "plaintiff does not clearly allege facts that demonstrate standing to pursue her claims in federal court, and the Court consequently lacks jurisdiction over this action." [GN] [*] Fintech Loan Firm Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Loan Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ natlawreview.com reports that on January 29, a Missouri-based bank and its Kansas-based fintech loan servicer filed a joint motion to dismiss a purported class action filed against them alleging violations of the Georgia Installment Loan Act (GILA) and state RICO law, arising out of a consumer installment loan. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the bank partnership was a "rent-a-bank" scheme designed to circumvent Georgia's restrictions on payday lending such that the fintech servicer, rather than the bank, was the "true lender" under the loan agreement. The loan, which was governed by Missouri law, was entered into in 2019. Four years later, plaintiff brought suit in federal court on claims that the fintech servicer was actually the "true lender" and that the bank violated the GILA by charging an APR in excess of 540%, a rate that substantially exceeds Georgia's 10% rate cap. In its motion to dismiss, defendants argued as follows: As a Missouri-chartered institution, the bank it is exempt under the GILA and authorized under Section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to export the maximum interest rate where it is chartered, to Georgia. Because the contracted-for interest rate is allowable in Missouri, the bank violated no laws. The loan was "valid when made." Because the interest rate in the original loan agreement was not usurious, it does not become so upon assignment. Allegations that the bank is not the true lender and conspired to collect on an unlawful debt are "formulaic recitations" of a conspiracy as the bank was the "true lender." Putting it into Practice: With more and more states targeting bank partnership arrangements, either through legislation (as discussed here, here, and here) or enforcement actions (as discussed here and here) based on the "true lender" legal theory, which posits that nonbanks "rent" bank charters to, among other things, evade state usury laws, institutions can expect to see a rise in class actions alleging claims similar to the ones raised here. One possible mitigation strategy -- a good arbitration provision. As we have discussed previously, arbitration provisions may help companies avoid similar class actions. However, as noted, they will not eliminate the risk of "true lender" challenges brought by regulatory agencies. [GN] [*] Qualicum Beach File Suit Against Fossil Fuel Firms in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Briones at pqbnews.com reports that the Town of Qualicum Beach has committed to work with other municipal governments in the province to bring a class action lawsuit against selected global fossil fuel companies and recover the costs related to climate change. The decision was reached by council at its regular meeting on Feb. 7 but it was not unanimous as Coun. Scott Harrison voted in opposition. The town's commitment involves residents contributing $1 towards the lawsuit. However, it is contingent on council obtaining a copy of a legal opinion to determine if there is a solid legal basis for the claim and that other BC municipalities will also join and pledge a combined minimum of $500,000. "This is really about investing a dollar now as protection against costs that the town will incur . . . . we're expected to incur because of climate change and we already are incurring some costs because of that," said Coun. Anne Skipsey. "At this point, it is a commitment and to review the legal opinion as to why this class action lawsuit is doable and recommended. And also we have to wait until there's about $500,000 committed from other municipalities. So, it would be approval now but the action probably won't happen for some time." The town was asked to be involved in the 'Sue Big Oil' led by the West Coast Environmental Law following the delegation of Qualicum Beach resident Roy Colliver, who heads the local chapter of Sue Big Oil, and Andrew Gage, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law at council's regular meeting on Nov. 8, 2023. Both Colliver and Gage welcomed the town's commitment. "We are facing a massive bill for the measures needed to keep us safe from climate disasters, and it's only going up," Collver stated in a news release. Qualicum Beach's Climate Change Adaptation Plan identifies 31 actions that the town needs to be achieve to keep residents safe from the impacts of climate change. It is expected to cost between $1.2 million and $13.9 million. In addition, the town has already experienced flooding, damage to its waterfront and spent resources reducing wildfire risk. [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 ***