/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240315.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 15, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 55
Headlines
647 BRONX CORP: Faces Martinez Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches
ACE LAWN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrera Suit Alleges
AGC AMERICA: Teague Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
ALCHEMEE LLC: Faces Benzoyl Peroxide Product Class Action Suit
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Horton Appeals Judgment to 3rd Circuit
ALLEGHENY WOOD: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
ALRKUSH LLC: Wicklow Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
AMAZON INC: Court Certifies E-Book Consumer Class Action
AMERICAN HONDA: Cadena Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC: Macklin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
APPLE INC: Bid for Class Cert in Lopez Modified to March 15
APPLE INC: Gamboa Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices
ASPEN DENTAL: King Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
ATI PHYSICAL: Federal Securities Suit Agreement for Court Approval
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Racism Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Seal Nelson Filed Memorandum Docs
BEIS LLC: Demaio Sues Over Breach of FTSA's Caller ID Rules
BINANCE: Appeals Court Revives Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BINANCE: Court of Appeals Reverses Class Suit Dismissal
BIOVIE INC: Faces Way Suit Over Share Price Drop
BLACKBAUD INC: May Face Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
BUFFALO, NY: Court Dismisses U.S. Bank Trust Class Action
CAFE RIO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Wage Theft
CAMPBELL SOUP: Barrera Sues Over Canned Soup's Deceptive Beef Label
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
CENTURY COMMUNITIES: Vazquez Seeks Conditional Status of Action
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Six Class Suits Over Cyberattack
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Merry Sues Over Private Data Breach
CLARION SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wesley Alleges
CODE PRECAST PRODUCTS: Marenco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CUTERA INC: Securities Fraud Class Suit Pending in N.D. Cal.
D.R. HORTON: Appeals Remand Ruling in Brunetti Suit to 4th Cir.
DOUBLE M EXPRESS: Farah Sues Over Discriminatory Hiring Policy
EAST COAST: Faces Velez Suit Over Illegal Tip Practices
ELANCO ANIMAL: Settles Mislabeled Pet Collars Class Suit for $12-M
ELECTRICAL MILLSGUT: Borjas Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Electricians
EUROPEAN WAX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Hopgood Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Cir.
FCA LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hybrid Battery Fire Risks
FIFTYONE MERCHANTS: Martinez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
FINDLAY AND SONS: Faces Fuqua Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
FL 2518: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tijero Suit Alleges
FLO HEALTH: Court Certifies Period Tracker App Class Action Suit
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Walling Securities Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
GENERAL MILLS: Cereals Contain Chlormequat Chloride, Epstein Says
HEALTH CARE: Burger Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
HUT 8 MINING: Faces Suit Over Alleged Securities Law Violations
HY-VEE INC: Court Dismisses Overharged 401(k) Plan Class Suit
I-PACK EXPRESS: De Pino Sues Over Labor Law Violations
INSIDER INC: Gabrielli Sues Over Unauthorized IP Address Collection
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Habelt Files Writ of Certiorari Extension
IROBOT CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over Merger With Amazon
J.B. HUNT: Williams Appeals Final Judgment in Labor Suit
KAG WEST: Estrada FEHA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
KENVUE INC: Shares Rose 1.7% After Tylenol Cases Dismissal Ruling
KIMBERLY CLARK: High Court Confirms Flushable Wipes' Class Suit
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Substances
LAKESIDE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Claims
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Suit Over Identity Theft, Credit Freezes
LYFT INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
MACY'S RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sykes Alleges
MARIVALE: Settles Underpayment Class Suit for $18-Mil.
MCJ PROFESSIONAL: Caballero Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: DiCroce Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
NEUTRON HOLDINGS: Lacks Autorenewal Term Disclosure, Murrin Claims
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Over Cultural Fishing Rights
NFHS NETWORK: Kasper Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Radiator Cooling Fan Defect
NORTHERN DYNASTY: High Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Shareholder Suit in California Court Ongoing
PACIFIC HOODS: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PACIFIC PARTNERS: Abron Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Continued to May 20
PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gay Continued to May 20
PARODI HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PEARSON EDUCATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Collins Class Suit
PELICIA HALL: Seeks to Remove Exhibit 34 from Class Cert Response
PERDOCEO EDUCATION: Court OK's Settlement Deal in Sweet Class Suit
RESTAURANT LIFE: Fails to Pay Workers Proper Wages, Surgento Says
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Bush False Ad Suit
RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nance Extended to Oct. 7
SAGE HOME LOANS: Burnelle Files Suit in D. South Carolina
SAHADI'S LLC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SCHMIDT ADVISORY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Davis Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 27
SNOWFLAKE INC: Flannery Sues Over Nearly 30% Drop of Stock Price
SOUTHEAST UTILITIES: Chapman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Linemen
SPI LIGHTING: Stumpf Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
STAPLES CONTRACT: Alcaraz Suit Removed to E.D. California
STATE FARM: 4th Circuit Says Virus Class Suit Should Be Dismissed
STEEL STANDING: Underpays Construction Workers, Brizuela Alleges
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Conditional Status Bid Terminated
SWIFT PORK: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Vail
SYNDICATED BAR & THEATER: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
T.Y.P. RESTAURANT: Jordan Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
TCOM LP: Parties Seek to Conditionally Certify Collective
TERRY FLEMING: Court Narrows Claims in Craig Suit
TESLA INC: Driver Loses Bid in Battery Class Action to Arbitration
THEO CHOCOLATE: Chesavage & Davis Actions Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
TKO GROUP: Continues to Defend Le Class Suit in Nevada
TKO GROUP: Continues to Defend WWE Class Suit in Delaware
TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Exhibits
TREMSON RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges
TWO JINN: Mejia Submits Support to Class Cert Opposition
TWO JINN: Seeks to Seal Tailored Portions of Class Cert Opposition
U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE: Garcia FLSA Suit Seeks Drivers' Unpaid Wages
UNIBARNS TRADING: Jones Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
UNILEVER UNITED: Candelaria Seeks Class Cert Pre-Bid Conference
UNITED STATES: Parties Seeks to Certify Briefing Schedule
UNIVERSAL IMAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conaway Alleges
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Filing Due Sept. 25
UNIVIDA HALLANDALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Veloz Alleges
UPS STORE: Seeks to Denial of McLaren Class Certification Bid
US POSTAL: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Donkor
VICTORIA: May Face Class Suit Over Child Sex Abuse in Schools
VIRGINIA: To Amend Senate Bill 259 to Limit VCPA Statutory Damages
VIVID SEATS: Rubinstein Sues Over Failure to Disclose Ticket Cost
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of Labor Laws
WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Chute Claims
WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Disabled Student Transpo Class Action Suit
WELCH FOODS: Bustamante Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Products
WELCH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Grape Juice False Ads
WELLS FARGO: Enrolls Customers to Unwanted Products, Gonzales Says
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Court Rules in Favor of Alaska
WORLEY LIMITED: To Pay Class Suit Bill After Pyrrhic Court Win
YANKEE CANDLE: Settles Wages Underpayment Class Suit for $1.2-Mil.
ZUORA INC: Johnson Suit Seeks to Invalidate Advance Notice Bylaw
[*] Class Action Seeks Damages for Intergenerational Trauma
[^] 2024 Class Action Conference Sponsors Named, Register Today!
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Has $498MM Gross Reserves as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Corp. Defends Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Reports $310K Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 278 Individual Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Recognizes $423MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $567MM Defendant A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Faces 195 Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Reports $12.4MM Net A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Group Has $132.5MM Gross A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $48MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,390 Cases Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 257 Exposure Suits as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Tech. Faces Product Liability Claims
*********
647 BRONX CORP: Faces Martinez Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ANASTICIO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 647 BRONX CORP. (D/B/A KENNEDY
CHICKEN) and KHARULLAH MOHAMMAD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01615
(S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
Plaintiff Martinez was employed by Defendants as a cook at Kennedy
Fried Chicken from approximately 2016 until on or about August 9,
2022. He worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked, says the Plaintiff.
647 BRONX CORP operateS a fried chicken restaurant located in a
neighborhood in the Bronx. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ACE LAWN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrera Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO BARRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACE LAWN AND HOME SERVICES, LLC; and AUSTIN
ELLASSER, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00559 (M.D. Fla., March 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 Barrera was employed by the Defendants as a landscaper.
ACE LAWN AND HOME SERVICES, LLC is a landscaping company in Tampa,
FL that offers a wide variety of lawn care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
Email: MBouzas@floringray.com
WFlorin@floringray.com
AGC AMERICA: Teague Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD TEAGUE, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGC AMERICA, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00823-VMC (N.D. Ga., February 23, 2024)
is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal information of Defendant's current
and former employees and prospective employees including personally
identifiable information and protected health information as
defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996.
According to the complaint, the private information compromised in
the data breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and
remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The data breach was
a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect its employees' private information from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the private
information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the
hands of data thieves, says the suit.
AGC America, Inc. is an association for the construction
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4729 Roswell Road Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
ALCHEMEE LLC: Faces Benzoyl Peroxide Product Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wisner Baum filed multiple class actions alleging several companies
sold benzoyl peroxide (BPO) acne products without warning consumers
that they contain unsafe levels of benzene, a potent human
carcinogen.
Class action attorneys Stephanie B. Sherman and R. Brent Wisner
filed the complaints (Example Case: Howard et al. v. Alchemee, LLC
and Taro Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01834) on
behalf of consumers who allege the following companies fraudulently
marketed and sold acne face washes, creams, and other products when
they knew or should have known that the products degrade to
benzene:
-- Alchemee, LLC and Taro Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. (Proactiv BPO
products)
-- CVS Pharmacy Inc. and CVS Health Corp. (CVS Health Acne
Treatment Cream and CVS Health Acne Control Cleanser)
-- RB Health, LLC (Clearasil Rapid Rescue Spot Treatment Cream and
Clearasil Stubborn Acne Control 5 in 1 Spot Treatment Cream)
-- Target Corp. (Up & Up BPO products)
-- Genomma Lab USA, Inc. (Asepxia Acne Spot Treatment Cream)
-- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (Daily Creamy Benzoyl Peroxide
Acne Face Wash and
-- Maximum Strength Acne Foaming Wash)
The class actions follow independent testing from Valisure, an
independent accredited laboratory that uses validated analytical
methods to test drugs and consumer products for safety. Valisure
tested 99 BPO-formulated products and found that some yielded
benzene at levels 800 times 2 ppm, the maximum amount allowed in
any U.S. regulated drug. Some of the benzene levels were many times
higher than 2 ppm, reaching as high as 1700 ppm for Proactiv's 2.5%
BPO Cream and 1600 ppm for Target's Up & Up 2.5% BPO Cream.
Valisure included its testing results in a Citizen's Petition to
the FDA and demanded an immediate recall of all BPO products to
protect public health.
According to the lawsuit allegations, the defendant companies
continued to advertise and sell BPO products, ignoring the FDA
safety alert on the dangers of benzene in consumer products and a
directive to test products for benzene. The degradation of benzoyl
peroxide to benzene was first reported in scientific literature in
1936, attorneys say, so the companies knew or should have known
their products would degrade and form benzene. "These companies say
their face washes and creams are safe, but they have no basis to
make this claim because they aren't actually testing their products
for basic safety," says attorney Stephanie Sherman. "Our clients
never would have purchased these products had they known they were
exposing themselves to a dangerous carcinogen."
About Wisner Baum
Los Angeles-based Wisner Baum has successfully litigated cases
against many of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. Since
1985, the firm has earned a reputation for breaking new legal
ground, holding corporations accountable, influencing public
policy, and raising public awareness on important safety issues.
Across all practice areas, the firm has won over $4 billion in
settlements and verdicts.
Media Contact: Robin McCall
Director of Public Relations Wisner Baum
RMcCall@WisnerBaum.com [GN]
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Horton Appeals Judgment to 3rd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
DION HORTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Dion Horton, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Administrative Judge Jill Rangos, in her official capacity, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2-22-cv-01391, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.
This case is a putative class action brought by probationers in the
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania court system. The Plaintiffs allege
that the probation procedures implemented by Allegheny County fall
short of constitutional due-process requirements because when they
were arrested for probation violations, they should have been, but
were not, given a meaningful opportunity to seek release from jail
pending a final revocation determination.
The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim, which the Court denied through an Order entered
by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on Apr. 14, 2023.
On May 12, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's Order denying their motions to dismiss.
On Feb. 21, 2024, the Court entered a summary judgment in favor of
the Defendants on Counts I and II of the Plaintiffs' complaint. The
Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts
III and IV. As such, those counts were dismissed without prejudice.
The Defendants' pending motions for reconsideration were denied as
moot.
The appellate case is captioned Dion Horton, et al. v.
Administrative Judge Jill Rangos, et al., Case No. 24-1325, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on
February 26, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DION HORTON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Bret Grote, Esq.
Jaclyn Kurin, Esq.
Dolly Prabhu, Esq.
ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 8654
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Telephone: (412) 654-9070
(610) 716-8381
- and -
Katherine Hubbard, Esq.
Leonard J. Laurenceau, Esq.
Sumayya Saleh, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (319) 325-2788
(305) 546-5517
(813) 351-9423
Defendants-Appellees ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JILL RANGOS, in her
official capacity, et al. are represented by:
Michael Daley, Esq.
Nicole A. Feigenbaum, Esq.
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 560-6300
(215) 560-6326
- and -
Corrie A. Woods, Esq.
200 Commerce Drive
Moon Township, PA 15108
Telephone: (412) 329-7751
- and -
John A. Bacharach, Esq.
BACHARACH & KLEIN
564 Forbes Avenue
1113 Manor Complex
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
- and -
Dennis R. Biondo, Jr., Esq.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY LAW DEPARTMENT
300 Fort Pitt Commons
445 Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite LL 500
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
ALLEGHENY WOOD: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BEANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENY WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00102 (S.D.W.V., March 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 100 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.
ALLEGHENY WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. is a West Virginia-based and
international hardwood producer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda J. Taylor, Esq.
TAYLOR, HINKLE & TAYLOR
115 1/2 S. Kanawha St.
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 894-8733
Facsimile: (681) 245-6236
Email: amanda@thtwv.com
ALRKUSH LLC: Wicklow Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WICKLOW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALRKUSH, LLC d/b/a SHARKEY'S BAR AND GRILL,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60297-RS (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum
Wage Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant committed state and federal
minimum wage violations because it: (1) compensated restaurant
servers and bartenders at a reduced minimum wage for tipped
employees, but failed to provide Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated with statutory notice of taking a tip credit; (2)
unlawfully retained Plaintiff's and similarly situated servers' and
bartenders' tips to cover costs associated with walk-outs or
"dine-and-dash" customers for Defendant's benefit; and (3) allowed
supervisors and managers to take servers' and bartenders' tips for
Defendant's benefit. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated
servers and bartenders have been denied state and federal minimum
wages during various workweeks within the relevant time period,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server at Sharkey's Bar and
Grill restaurant located in Coral Springs, Florida from August 25,
2023 until October 2, 2023.
ALRKUSH, LLC owns and operates Sharkey's Bar and Grill
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
AMAZON INC: Court Certifies E-Book Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Velocity of Content reports that in New York, U.S. District Judge
Gregory Woods formally accepted a magistrate's recommendation that
lawyers for a consumer class action against Amazon have enough
facts to plausibly allege that the e-retailer's conduct has led to
"reduced competition" in the e-book marketplace and "higher e-book
prices for consumers."
"While several core claims in the suit were rejected, the
litigation can now move forward on two claims of 'monopolization'
and 'attempted monopolization' against Amazon," reports Andrew
Albanese, Publishers Weekly executive editor.
Filed in 2021, the suit initially alleged that the Big Five
publishers -- Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan,
Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster -- were co-conspirators
in a scheme with Amazon to suppress retail price competition and
keep e-book prices artificially high.
In September 2022, however, a magistrate judge recommended the case
be rejected for lack of evidence. When the U.S. District Court
Judge for the Southern District of New York ruled accordingly, he
allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
In a 125-page Second Consolidated Amended complaint filed in
November 2022, lawyers for Hagens Berman returned to argue that
Amazon's dominance in the e-book market has enabled the company to
"coerce" publishers into anticompetitive deals, specifically,
contractual provisions that foreclose competition on price or
product availability.
In its defense, Amazon insists that its contract terms are "not
inherently anticompetitive," and that there is no evidence the
company's conduct "had the effect of raising agency commissions to
anticompetitive levels."
"But those questions don't need to be resolved at the pleading
stage," Albanese tells CCC's Chris Kenneally.
"The court held that the plaintiffs had enough to keep the case
from being dismissed. However, publishers have been officially
dismissed from the case -- there was simply no evidence of any
conspiracy to fix prices, which the publishers have always called
absurd." [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Cadena Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN CADENA, et al.,
v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their application for leave to file under
seal:
The Plaintiffs submit this application concurrently with their
Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification, and
related oppositions to Honda's motions to exclude, which reference
and attach exhibits and discovery materials designated as
Confidential by Defendant American Honda Motor Company (AHM) under
the Stipulated Amended Protective Order.
The Plaintiffs seek to seal documents designated as Confidential by
AHM as well as unredacted versions of Plaintiffs' briefing that
rely on documents designated as Confidential by AHM.
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5, the Plaintiffs conferred with
Defendant on Feb. 27, 2024, in an attempt to eliminate or minimize
the need for filing documents under seal by proposing redactions to
those documents.
Counsel for the Defendant have represented to Plaintiffs that
Defendant will file a declaration that substantiates why the
documents designated as Confidential by AHM should be filed under
seal.
The Plaintiffs include Matthew Villanueva, Roxana Cardenas, Robert
Morse, James Adams, Larry Fain, Joseph Russell, Peter Watson, Susan
McGrath, Ann Hensley, Craig DuTremble, and Vincent Liem.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N0RBTb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
David Stein, Esq.
Steve Lopez, Esq.
Brian Bailey, Esq.
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
sal@classlawgroup.com
bwb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
Benjamin Donahue, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW APC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
bdonahue@greenstonelaw.com
AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC: Macklin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
SYEED MACKLIN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC HOSPITAL d/b/a FOX CHASE
CANCER CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 240300103 (Pa. Com. Pl.,
Philadelphia Cty., March 1, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant’s
violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
failed to him and those situated all overtime wages earned.
On or around November 2, 2023, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an
orderly around 40 or more hours in a workweek. Allegedly, Defendant
utilized/utilizes a rounding system in computing earned wages that
rounds to the closest quarter-hour. As a result, Plaintiff
regularly worked unpaid time during a workweek, says the suit.
Located in Philadelphia, PA, American Oncologic Hospital provides
emergency care, women's health services, cardiology, orthopedic,
and oncology services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
APPLE INC: Bid for Class Cert in Lopez Modified to March 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUMIKO LOPEZ, FUMIKO
LOPEZ, as guardian of A.L., a minor, LISHOMWA HENRY, JOSEPH HARMS,
JOHN TROY PAPPAS, and DAVID YACUBIAN individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-04577-JSW (N.D. Cal,), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered
an order modifying case
management schedule as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadlines
Deadlines
Plaintiffs' Deadline to Serve Mar. 1, 2024 Apr. 30,
2024
Expert Reports in Support of
Class Certification
Motion for Class Certification Mar. 15, 2024 May 17,
2024
Apple's Deadline to Serve Expert May 3, 2024 July 3,
2024
Reports in Opposition to Class
Certification
Opposition to Motion for Class May 17, 2024 July 19,
2024
Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of July 3, 2024 Aug. 30,
2024
Class Certification and Deadline
to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports,
if any
Last Day to Complete Mediation June 7, 2024 Sept. 27,
2024
Hearing regarding Class July 26, 2024 Oct. 11,
2024
Certification
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gEhIVG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
Sean C. Russell, Esq.
Victoria L. Burke, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169-1820
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
srussell@scott-scott.com
vburke@scott-scott.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
afarah@lowey.com
- and -
Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
Patrick Carey, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 913-7800
Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
pcarey@lexlawgroup.com
- and -
E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM
Birmingham, AL 35238
Telephone: (205) 612-0243
E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Isabelle Ord, Esq.
Raj N. Shah, Esq.
Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Telephone: (415) 836-2500
Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
E-mail: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
raj.shah@dlapiper.com
eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
APPLE INC: Gamboa Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
JULIANNA FELIX GAMBOA, individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-01270 (N.D. Cal., March 1,
2024) alleges violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers
who purchased iCloud storage plans and were overcharged. The
Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the said laws by
unlawfully "tying" two products together -- specifically, its
mobile devices and iCloud -- or by compelling that device holders
use iCloud to back up and store Restricted Files. In addition, the
Defendant unlawfully monopolizes the market for cloud storage on
Apple Mobile devices by inhibiting competition from rival
cloud-storage providers. The Plaintiff and the class were further
harmed because Apple's restraints reduce output and stifle
innovation by suppressing competitors' incentives to develop cloud
storage solutions that better serve the needs of Apple device
holders.
Moreover, Defendant has also violated California's Unfair
Competition Law by engaging in "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent"
business practices, including tying and restraining competition
among cloud-storage platforms that would otherwise inure to the
benefit of consumers, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple designs, manufactures, and
markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, and smart
watches, and sells a variety of services, including iCloud. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
Gayne A. Kalustian-Carrier, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com
bens@hbsslaw.com
gaynek@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve. W. Berman, Esq.
Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
Catherine Y. N. Gannon, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
robl@hbsslaw.com
catherineg@hbsslaw.com
ASPEN DENTAL: King Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
----------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDINE KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01764 (N.D. Ill., March 1, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class members' private
information are safe.
On or no later than April 25, 2023, unauthorized third-party
cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff’s and Class members'
sensitive personal information. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks for
injunctive and other equitable relief requiring the Defendant to
implement and maintain a comprehensive Information Security Program
designed to protect the confidentiality and integrity of this
information.
The Plaintiff assert claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Aspen Dental Management, Inc. is a
dental practice chain that has more than 900 locations across the
United States, and its network serves approximately 35,000 patients
per day. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
ATI PHYSICAL: Federal Securities Suit Agreement for Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Physical Therapy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the federal
securities class suit agreement reached by parties is subject to
the court's approval.
On August 16, 2021, two purported ATI stockholders, Kevin Burbige
and Ziyang Nie, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against ATI,
Labeed Diab, Joe Jordan, and Drew McKnight (collectively, the "ATI
Individual Defendants"), and Joshua Pack, Marc Furstein, Leslee
Cowen, Aaron Hood, Carmen Policy, Rakefet Russak-Aminoach, and
Sunil Gulati (collectively, the "FVAC Defendants").
On October 7, 2021, another purported ATI stockholder, City of
Melbourne Firefighters' Retirement System ("City of Melbourne"),
filed a nearly identical putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the FVAC Defendants.
On November 18, 2021, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix
Pension & Provident Funds as lead plaintiffs (together, "Lead
Plaintiffs").
On February 8, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the FVAC
Defendants, which asserts claims against (i) ATI and the ATI
Individual Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (ii)
the ATI Individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act (in connection with the Section 10(b) claim); (iii) all
defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iv) the
ATI Individual Defendants and the FVAC Defendants under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act (in connection with the Section 14(a)
claim).
Lead Plaintiffs purport to assert these claims on behalf of those
ATI stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired their ATI
shares between February 22, 2021 and October 19, 2021, inclusive,
and/or held FVAC Class A common shares as of May 24, 2021 and were
eligible to vote at FVAC's June 15, 2021 special meeting.
The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the proxy
materials for the FVAC/ATI merger, as well as other ATI disclosures
(including the press release announcing ATI’s financial results
for the first quarter of 2021), were false and misleading (and,
thus, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act)
because they failed to disclose that: (i) ATI was experiencing
attrition among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI faced increasing
competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result,
ATI faced difficulty retaining therapists and incurred increased
labor costs; (iv) also as a result, ATI would open fewer new
clinics; and (v) also as a result, the defendants' positive
statements about ATI’s business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
seek money damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.
On April 11, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which were fully briefed as of July
25, 2022.
On September 6, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss.
On October 19, 2023, ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the
FVAC Defendants answered the consolidated amended complaint.
Discovery then commenced.
Thereafter, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve all claims in this action for $20.0 million (to be paid
entirely by insurance), which agreement remains subject to the
negotiation of formal settlement documentation, notice to the
putative class, and court approval.
The parties have the right to terminate the agreement in principle
under certain conditions.
The Company recorded an estimated liability of $20.0 million
related to this agreement in principle, which is included in
accrued expenses and other liabilities in its consolidated balance
sheets as of December 31, 2023, and a corresponding insurance
recovery receivable of $20.0 million, which is included in
insurance recovery receivable in its consolidated balance sheets as
of December 31, 2023.
ATI Physical Therapy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a
nationally-recognized healthcare company, specializing in
outpatient rehabilitation and adjacent healthcare services
including physical therapy to treat spine, shoulder, knee and neck
injuries or pain; work injury rehabilitation services, including
work conditioning and work hardening; hand therapy; and other
specialized treatment services. Its direct and indirect
wholly-owned subsidiaries include, but are not limited to, Wilco
Holdco, Inc., ATI Holdings Acquisition, Inc. and ATI Holdings,
LLC.
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Racism Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damien McCartney, writing for Wide World of Sports, reports that
some of the biggest names in the AFL have reportedly been named in
a bombshell class action submitted in the Supreme Court by North
Melbourne legends, the Krakouer brothers.
News Corp reported Essendon greats Kevin Sheedy, Terry Daniher,
Roger Merrett and Bill Duckworth, as well as four-time Blues
premiership player Wayne Johnston were named in the claim.
The document, which has not been seen by Wide World of Sports,
reportedly claims Sheedy instructed his players to taunt Phil and
Jim Krakouer during the 1982 elimination final between the two
clubs to gain a tactical advantage.
Sheedy was in his second year as Bombers coach.
The document also reportedly alleges the abuse from Bombers players
continued whenever the two clubs met, and that the AFL "turned a
blind eye" to the issue.
The Krakouers were teammates at the Kangaroos between 1982 and
1989.
Sheedy is now an Essendon director, and has denied any wrongdoing.
He was a leader in establishing the annual Dreamtime at the 'G
clash between Richmond and Essendon, and since retiring from
coaching has been heavily involved in engagement programs with
Indigenous youth across Australia.
"I have always had the utmost respect for all First Nations players
who have played our great game," Sheedy told the Herald Sun.
"My track record stands for itself in this regard, and these
allegations made against me are totally inaccurate, are hurtful and
I look forward to defending myself vehemently against them."
The Bombers promised in a statement to support its former coach as
well as the players named in the claim.
"No individual should be subject to racism, discrimination or any
form of vilification, on or off the field," it read.
"We must continue to learn and reflect on the past to ensure our
game is free of any form of racism or discrimination.
"Throughout his career Kevin has championed the causes of First
Nations footballers, never more so than through his role in the
establishment of "Dreamtime at the G", a celebration of First
Nations peoples and cultures.
"As a director of the club, Kevin has strenuously denied the
allegation in the court action that refers to him and the club will
continue to support him and the past Essendon players that are also
referred to in the Court Action."
Daniher, Duckworth, Johnston and Merrett are yet to respond to the
class action.
In their own statement, the AFL has admitted the sport has a
history of racism, but denies claims the sport was run
'negligently'.
"We fully acknowledge during our long history of the game there has
been racism in Australian Football and that players have been
marginalised, hurt or discriminated against because of their race,"
it read.
"And for that we have apologised and continue to apologise and will
continue to act to address that harm.
"While we work through the class action, we will continue our
ongoing work against racism and discrimination with our clubs, our
players, our staff and our supporters to promote football
environments at all levels around the country that are safe and
respectful for all.
"We do not agree with the claims that the VFL/AFL has been
conducted negligently over the past 47 years and we will defend
those claims."
Phil Krakouer played 141 games for the Kangaroos, and retired in
1991 after a brief stint with Footscray.
Jim played 134 games, and also retired in 1991 after two seasons at
St Kilda. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Seal Nelson Filed Memorandum Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY NELSON and KAYLEIGH
POTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No.
5:23-cv-00255-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant moves the Court to seal
the unredacted version of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of
the Motion for Class Certification and accompanying Exhibits 15,
17, 18, 19, and 19A, which were provisionally filed under seal in
their entirety or publicly filed in redacted form, pursuant to
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1.5(a)(2) and the Confidentiality
Stipulation and Protective Order entered in this case (ECF 46)
Bank of America is a provider of corporate and investment banking
services, global markets sales and trading capabilities, and
capital markets capabilities.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SiSCK4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
Karla Johnson, Esq.
Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Tower Two-Sixty
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 667-6057
Facsimile: (412) 402-4187
E-mail: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com
kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com
bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
BEIS LLC: Demaio Sues Over Breach of FTSA's Caller ID Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-002965 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 2,
2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID
Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of
receiving calls when it made telephonic sales calls by text message
to promote Beis Travel.
Beis LLC is a foreign limited liability company that owns and
operates the website, www.beistravel.com, which sells travel
essentials and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
BINANCE: Appeals Court Revives Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhilesh De, writing for CoinDesk, reports that a group of
investors who tried to sue crypto exchange Binance, former CEO
Changpeng Zhao and other executives are getting a new chance after
an appeals court reversed a lower court ruling dismissing the
case.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a putative (or
aspiring) class action lawsuit against the world's largest crypto
exchange should not have been dismissed by a federal judge in the
Southern District of New York. The suit was originally brought in
April 2020 by a group of crypto investors, who alleged they
purchased securities from Binance, including the ERC-20 tokens EOS,
TRX, ELF, FUN, ICX, OMG, and QSP.
The EOS token is issued by Block.One, the parent company to
Bullish, which in turn is CoinDesk's parent company.
Judge Andrew Carter of the Southern District ruled in May 2022 that
the plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit after the statute of
limitations expired and that Binance was not a domestic exchange
and did not have strong enough ties within the U.S. to meet the
standards of federal securities laws, ruling to dismiss the case.
The ruling, which reverses Judge Carter's decision and sends the
case back to the district court, said the plaintiffs "plausibly
alleged" that transactions involving the assets in question were
finalized on servers within the U.S. and that they had accessed
Binance from the U.S. The ruling also took aim at Binance's
previous claims that it had no headquarters or any physical
location.
The circuit court also took aim at the timeliness question, saying
the plaintiffs did not start the statute of limitations clock until
they purchased the tokens, which was within a year of them filing
the suit (it's worth noting that there were more tokens in the
original complaint; only seven are involved in the said ruling).
"This ruling brings needed clarity to the question of when
secondary market trading of digital assets alleged to be securities
are domestic and thus subject to the U.S. federal securities laws,"
said Drew Hinkes, a partner at K&L Gates.
Importantly, the ruling doesn't say that the tokens at the heart of
the suit are or aren't securities. If the case isn't appealed and
goes back to the district court, the parties will get a chance to
argue over whether the tokens meet the definition of a security.
In a statement, plaintiffs' attorney Jordan Goldstein, a partner at
Selendy Gay, said, "On behalf of investors who traded on Binance,
we are pleased that a Second Circuit panel has unanimously
acknowledged the strength of our claims and permitted this action
to proceed. We look forward to prosecuting this class action
against Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao."
Binance can still try to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; if it
doesn't, or if the Supreme Court chooses not to take the appeal up,
the district court will take over again. The exchange did not
immediately return a request for comment. [GN]
BINANCE: Court of Appeals Reverses Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran Lyons of Cointelegraph reports that a United States appeals
court has overturned a ruling that dismissed a class-action lawsuit
led by investors against cryptocurrency exchange Binance.
According to a March 8 filing in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, a ruling by the district court that
dismissed investors' claims of transparency issues in Binance's
sale of alleged securities has been overturned in favor of the
investors.
"We hold that each of the district court's bases for dismissing
Plaintiffs' claims that are before us on appeal was erroneous," the
filing stated.
Chase Williams filed the lawsuit in April 2020 on behalf of
investors in a similar situation, arguing that Binance allegedly
contracted to sell securities without being registered as a
securities exchange or broker-dealer.
Furthermore, the investors have been seeking to cancel the
contracts they entered into with Binance.
"Plaintiffs seek damages arising from Binance's alleged
violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. Section 77l(a)(1), which they claim
occurred when Binance unlawfully promoted, offered, and sold
billions of dollars' worth of crypto-assets called "tokens," which
were not registered as securities."
The district court dismissed the lawsuit, citing the investors'
claims as being untimely according to the relevant statutes of
limitations.
However, the appeals court agrees with the plaintiffs claims that
Binance is subject to domestic securities laws and their initial
filing was timely.
This comes as Binance continues to grapple with ongoing legal
challenges from the U.S. securities regulator.
On March 6, Cointelegraph reported that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) has been "unable or unwilling" to answer
requests for information concerning the custody of customer
assets.
The SEC sued Binance, Binance.US and its founder and former CEO
Changpeng "CZ" Zhao in June 2023, for allegedly selling
unregistered securities and mixed customer assets in a separate
firm Zhao controlled.
In November 2023, Binance reached a $4.3 billion settlement with
the U.S. Department of Justice for violating U.S. money laundering
and terrorism financing laws.
As part of the settlement, Zhao pleaded guilty to money laundering
charges and faces his criminal sentencing hearing in April. [GN]
BIOVIE INC: Faces Way Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOVIE INC., CUONG DO, JOANNE WENDY KIM, and
JOSEPH PALUMBO, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00361 (D. Nev.,
February 22, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded BioVie securities from August 5, 2021 through
November 29, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statement because they misrepresented and failed
to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to BioVie's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused "limited access" to
clinical trial sites, significantly affecting the Company's ability
to conduct proper oversight of the clinical trial; (2) due to the
"limited access" to the clinical trial sites, the trial was at
higher risk of having "significant deviation from protocol and Good
Clinical Practice (GCP) violations" and "anomalous data;" (3) the
Company was experiencing issues with the CRO(s) it had retained,
creating greater risk of the trial being in non-compliance with
GCPs; (4) the Company had identified "higher than expected levels
of deviations" in the data; (5) due to a "highly unusual level of
suspected improprieties" there was a heightened risk a majority of
the clinical trial subjects would be excluded; (6) as a result of
the exclusions, there was a heightened material risk that the
clinical trial would "not achieve statistical significance;" and
(7) as a result of the foregoing, statements about BioVie's
business, operations, prospects, and/or compliance with GCP were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.
As a result of 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.
BioVie Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that
purports to engage in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of innovative drugs therapies, including for
treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders and
advanced liver disease.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com
- and -
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
BLACKBAUD INC: May Face Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Rademaker, writing for www.live5news.com, reports that
Charleston-based software company Blackbaud remains under fire for
a security breach that affected about a third of their clients and
opened up more than a million files with sensitive data to
hackers.
Nearly four years after the breach, a legal team at least 12 people
deep represents clients of Blackbaud who want to file a class
action lawsuit against the company for what it calls lax security
and handling of the breach.
For days, lawyers hashed out the details in federal court. Certain
requirements must be met before filing a class action, and that's
what each side made their case for. Blackbaud hopes to avoid a
large lawsuit, and lawyers for the businesses with lost data, made
their case that this is too big to ignore with lasting impacts.
Blackbaud is a company that sells software to other companies,
which can use it to store information about customers. Blackbaud
sells mostly to companies with a focus on social change, including
non-profits, animal shelters, health clinics and schools.
Customers at those companies share information with the site.
Everything from addresses, emails, credit card information, social
security numbers and health information with the promise their data
is being protected by Blackbaud software.
But, in May of 2020, Blackbaud said a hacker entered Blackbaud's
server, accessing information for 13,000 companies for three months
undetected. Lawyers on behalf of the companies who paid to store
this sensitive data with Blackbaud claim Blackbaud is playing down
the situation.
Blackbaud discovered the breach in May of 2020 and alerted their
customers in July of 2020. Blackbaud's own investigation showed the
breach allowed access to over a million files concerning over
13,000 of Blackbaud's customer companies.
Lawyers for the victims say Blackbaud had security issues and knew
it, making them negligent and responsible for the hack. They point
out that Blackbaud had "sticky keys" on since, had no policy for
encryption, did not use multi-factor authentication to get into
their servers, and no policy for scanning for issues or a plan to
fix those holes in the software.
Most of those issues were acknowledged by Blackbaud's own chief
information security officer in 2019. The officer has sent
correspondence across the company noting these issues needed to get
addressed and said the company was eight to 10 years behind in
terms of security.
The company has already settled a lawsuit with attorneys-general
for 49 US states for $49.5 million, South Carolina Attorney General
Alan Wilson included. Blackbaud has been fined by the FTC and SEC
for their lax security as well. Blackbaud faces ongoing litigation
from the attorney general of California.
Blackbaud argues that while this breach happened, they
appropriately communicated with their business clients about the
breach and offered templates to those businesses for how to tell
their customers about the breach as well.
Blackbaud does not argue that the breach did not happen but is
opposing a class action. They say their services are too diverse
and customizable so the companies affected had immensely different
impacts that under the law should not be lumped into a class
action.
Blackbaud says their software services range from accounting and
fundraising to marketing. In that vein, each client company had the
opportunity to pick and choose what software they used and what
information to input into the software. Some people input names and
email addresses only, while others entered social security numbers
and health testing data.
Federal Judge Joseph Anderson has the task of deciding whether the
victims of the hack should be able to sue the company in one event.
[GN]
BUFFALO, NY: Court Dismisses U.S. Bank Trust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as
Trustee of American Homeowner Preservation Trust series 2015A+ v.
City of Buffalo, New York, Buffalo Sewer Authority, Case No.
1:22-cv-00249-JLS-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John L. Sinatra
entered an order dismissing U.S. Bank Suit pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b).
On Nov. 10, 2023, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R), recommending that the Court dismiss the case, with prejudice
for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
Buffalo is the second-largest city in the U.S. state of New York
and the seat of Erie County.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EjZBaD at no extra
charge.[CC]
CAFE RIO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Wage Theft
----------------------------------------------------
Sean Hemmersmeier, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
that a former worker accused a Mexican fast-food chain with 19
locations in the Las Vegas Valley of systemically committing wage
theft by not properly paying for overtime work.
In a class-action lawsuit filed this week in Clark County, Talon
Bedjohn is accusing Cafe Rio of not paying him properly when he
worked overtime when he was employed there from March to October
2023.
The plaintiff's attorneys -- Christian Gabroy and Kaine Messer, who
are partners at the Gabroy Messer law firm -- allege that Cafe Rio
has a "systemic" form of wage theft.
"This is the common type of wage theft that is pervasive in
America," Gabroy said in an interview. "What's going on behind the
scenes here is that they're enriching profits, at the detriment of
our clients."
A spokesperson for Cafe Rio said the company learned about the
lawsuit this week and is "fully investigating" the allegations.
In Nevada, a company is required to pay 1.5 times an employee's
normal hourly wage once the employee starts working overtime. The
overtime rate kicks in once employees work more than eight hours in
a 24-hour period or if they work more than 40 hours a week.
A time sheet filed with the lawsuit shows Bedjohn would work more
than eight hours in a 24-hour period, working a night and a morning
shift on consecutive days, but didn't get overtime pay. But it also
shows that when Bedjohn worked over eight hours in a single shift,
he did get overtime pay.
Founded in St. George, Utah, in 1997, Cafe Rio has expanded by more
than 50 percent over the past five years, according to the company.
It said it planned to have 163 locations open by the end of 2023
across 11 states.
Currently, the class-action lawsuit only has one plaintiff, but
Gabroy and Messer said they will "pursue it everywhere" and take
the necessary steps to let current or former Cafe Rio employees
sign on, even if they worked at locations outside Clark County.
The lawsuit is meant to ensure Cafe Rio pays properly for overtime
work, Gabroy and Messer said. They also said they aren't looking to
unduly harm the company.
"If they want to do the right thing and come to the table and try
to make right by these people, great," Messer said. "And if not,
we're not going anywhere, and we're in this for the long haul."
[GN]
CAMPBELL SOUP: Barrera Sues Over Canned Soup's Deceptive Beef Label
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EUNICE BARRERA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01523 (S.D.N.Y., February 29, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the
New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its canned soup
represented as "Beef with Country Vegetables." Despite the emphasis
on beef, including its placement before vegetables and in a font
twice as large, what buyers receive is a soup predominantly from
vegetables. As a result of the Defendant's false and misleading
representations and omissions, the product is sold at a premium
price, the suit asserts.
Campbell Soup Company is a food company, headquartered in Camden,
New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ALICE CLARK,
CHRISTOPHER COULTER, AARON PEREZ and KEVIN NELSON, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MYEYEDR, Case No.
1:22-cv-10236-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
-- Certifying all individuals who worked as General Managers for
MyEyeDr in Massachusetts since March 21, 2019;
-- Appointing the Plaintiffs Mary Alice Clark and Christopher
Coulter as representatives of the Massachusetts class;
-- Certifying a class that includes all individuals who worked as
General Managers for MyEyeDr in Pennsylvania since March 21,
2019;
-- Appointing Plaintiff Nelson as representative of the
Pennsylvania
class; and
-- Appointing the undersigned as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs allege that MyEyeDr has wrongly classified its
general managers as exempt from overtime, in violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (Count 3) and the Massachusetts
overtime statute (Count 4).
The Plaintiffs filed this case on February 11, 2022, asserting
overtime misclassification claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act on behalf of a putative nationwide collective, and amended the
complaint on March 21, 2022, adding overtime misclassification
claims on behalf of state law classes in Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of
the nationwide FLSA collective under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and
this Court granted that motion. The Court held that the Plaintiffs
had demonstrated that members of the collective were similarly
situated, by demonstrating similarity in the Plaintiffs' duties,
responsibilities, and experiences as GMs.
Capital is the parent company for all MyEyeDr practices around
the country.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion sdated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G8YYGE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK, PC.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617)607-3261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
Camar Jones, Esq.
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com
cjones@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Sam J. Smith, Esq.
BURR & SMITH LLP
9800 4th Street North, Suite 200
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Telephone: (813) 253-2010
E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
- and -
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
CENTURY COMMUNITIES: Vazquez Seeks Conditional Status of Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salvador Vazquez, an
Arizona Resident, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Century Communities, Inc. a Delaware
corporation; and Inspire Home Loans, Inc. an Arizona corporation;
Case No. 2:24-cv-00191-SRB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
(1) Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
with
respect to the class definition:
"All employees who work[ed] for Century Communities, Inc
and/or
Inspire Home Loans, Inc. and/or a related entity; within the
last three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given
workweek as a past or present mortgage underwriter (or
similar
job title and/or similar job duties and responsibilities);
who
were not paid overtime at their adjusted overtime rate of
pay
for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, are known
as
(the "Collective Members").
The Plaintiff Salvador Vazquez seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages for himself and the Collective Members, requiring the proper
payment of overtime wages to employees, under the collective action
mechanism of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Century Communities engages in homebuilding business in Atlanta,
Central Texas, Colorado, Houston, and Nevada.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OMBaba at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Weiler, Esq.
WEILER LAW PLLC
5050 N.40th St., Suite 260
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (480) 442-3410
Facsimile: (480) 442-3410
E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Six Class Suits Over Cyberattack
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Olsen, writing for healthcaredive.com, reports that at least
six cases seeking class-action status were filed since the
cyberattack, alleging the technology firm didn’t have reasonable
cybersecurity measures in place.
Dive Brief:
-- Lawsuits related to the cyberattack at Change Healthcare are
accumulating as the healthcare industry endures more than two weeks
of disruptions due to the outage at the technology firm.
-- At least six lawsuits seeking class-action status have been
filed this month. Four were filed in a Tennessee district court
where Change is based and two were in Minnesota where parent
company UnitedHealth Group is headquartered.
-- The suits allege the technology firm didn’t have reasonable
cybersecurity measures in place to prevent a data breach, allowing
criminals to potentially expose sensitive health and other personal
information.
Dive Insight:
The outage at Change, which began on Feb. 21, has had wide-ranging
impacts on the healthcare sector, hamstringing key pharmacy and
revenue cycle operations.
Providers have reported challenges receiving payment from patients
and insurers, verifying coverage, submitting prior authorization
requests or exchanging clinical records.
Change processes 15 billion healthcare transactions annually and
touches one in every three patient records, according to a letter
from the American Hospital Association.
Earlier this week, the CMS rolled out flexibilities that aim to
assist providers with growing financial challenges due to the
attack, but provider groups argued the sector needs more relief to
mitigate the damage. Reporting from Stat News found the outage
could last weeks.
Some patients have also reported challenges receiving their
prescriptions. In one lawsuit filed in Minnesota, the plaintiff was
unable to use his health insurance to fill two prescriptions and
had to pay full price to receive his medications. Another suit
filed in Minnesota alleged a patient faced challenges quickly
accessing his prescription after the Change outage, potentially
risking health impacts.
The suits filed in Tennessee name Change as the defendant, while
those in Minnesota name UnitedHealth, insurer UnitedHealthcare,
health services segment Optum and Change. They all argue the tech
firm didn’t have adequate protections in place to safeguard
sensitive health information.
One of the suits filed in Minnesota also cited communications from
the ransomware group AlphV, or Blackcat, which UnitedHealth
confirmed last week had taken responsibility for the attack. The
suit said the group claimed to have exfiltrated data like medical
records, payment information as well as patient contact details and
Social Security numbers.
When reached for commented a UnitedHealth spokesperson said the
company is "focused on the investigation and restoring operations
at Change Healthcare."
The lawsuits come as cyberattacks against the healthcare sector
become more common -- and so have lawsuits related to data
breaches.
A Bloomberg Law analysis published last summer found the monthly
average of new class actions filed over health data breaches thus
far in 2023 was nearly double the rate from the previous year. [GN]
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Merry Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Merry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Change Healthcare Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00239 (M.D. Tenn., March 1, 2024) arises out of the recent
cyberattack and data breach resulting from Change's failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security
practices.
In an online notice published to its website in February 2024,
Defendant asserts that it has a cybersecurity issue perpetrated by
a cybercrime threat actor called ALPHV/Blackcat. However, the
notice failed to contain information about the root cause of the
data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial
measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited
to, compensatory damages and injunctive relief including
improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual
audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by
Defendant.
Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare Inc. is a
healthcare company that provides payment and revenue cycle
services, clinical and imaging services, and other services to its
clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael Iadevaia, Esq.
Emily Schiller, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolawyers.com
CLARION SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wesley Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACKALLISA WESLEY, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLARION SECURITY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02132-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 29, 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 Wesley was employed by the Defendant as a security
guard.
CLARION SECURITY, LLC is a private company that specializes in the
security, investigations, and personnel security services areas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
CODE PRECAST PRODUCTS: Marenco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Code Precast
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Jimmy Marenco, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Code Precast
Products, Inc., Case No. BCV-24-100688 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Feb. 28, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Code Precast Products, Inc. -- https://codeprecast.com/ -- was
founded in 1992. The company's line of business includes
distributing construction materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
CUTERA INC: Securities Fraud Class Suit Pending in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Cutera Inc. disclosed in its Form 10Q/A Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 5, 2024, that the securities fraud class suit
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On May 24, 2023, purported shareholder Erie County Employees’
Retirement System filed a putative class action securities fraud
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, David H. Mowry, Rohan Seth, and J.
Daniel Plants, asserting claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The California litigation remains pending.
Cutera, Inc. develops, manufactures, distributes and markets
energy-based product platforms for medical practitioners, under
the
following system platforms: "AviClear," "Enlighten," "Excel,"
"truSculpt," "Secret PRO," "Secret RF," and "Xeo." These platforms
enable medical practitioners to perform procedures including
treatment for acne, body contouring, skin resurfacing and
revitalization, hair and tattoo removal, removal of benign
pigmented lesions, and vascular conditions.
D.R. HORTON: Appeals Remand Ruling in Brunetti Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
D.R. HORTON, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting
the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Donna
Brunetti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-06006-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina.
The lawsuit, which was removed from the Berkeley County Court of
Common Pleas, is brought against the Defendant for contract
violation.
On Dec. 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to state court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Richard M. Gergel on Feb. 20, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Donna
Brunetti, Case No. 24-117, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on February 28, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent DONNA BRUNETTI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq.
Dabny Lynn, Esq.
Alexandra Scott O'Neill, Esq.
Charlotte Banning Winckler, Esq.
JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, PA
415 Mill Street
P.O. Box 806
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Telephone: (843) 849-8400
(843) 849-8941
- and -
Benjamin Alexander Crute Traywick, Esq.
BEN TRAYWICK LAW FIRM, LLC
171 Church Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 872-1709
Defendant-Petitioner D.R. HORTON, INC. is represented by:
John T. Crawford, Jr., Esq.
Jason Imhoff, Esq.
David L. Paavola, Esq.
Kimila Lynn Wooten, Esq.
KENISON DUDLEY CRAWFORD, LLC
325 East McBee Avenue
Greenville, SC 29601
Telephone: (864) 242-4899
(864) 255-9500
- and -
Carl Frederick Muller, Esq.
CARL F. MULLER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A.
P.O. Box 1717
Greenville, SC 29602
Telephone: (864) 991-8904
DOUBLE M EXPRESS: Farah Sues Over Discriminatory Hiring Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMAL FARAH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DOUBLE M EXPRESS, INC., RECRUIT PROMASTER, INC., WGB
FREIGHT LINES, INC., BB WOLF INC., and MILOS GUBIC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01757 (N.D. Ill., March 1, 2024) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged discriminatory hiring policy that violated the
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human
Rights Act.
Plaintiff Farah asserts claims of national origin, religious, and
ethnic discrimination based on Defendants' refusal to hire and/or
refusal to refer for employment Somali and/or Muslim applicants.
On or about June 26, 2022, Plaintiff applied for employment with
Double M. However, he was rejected because of his Somali national
origin, ethnicity and/or his Muslim religion, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in DuPage County, Illinois, Double M Express, Inc.
operates a trucking business in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ferne P. Wolf, Esq.
SILERSTEIN|WOLF, LLC
530 Maryville Center Drive, Suite 460
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 744-4010
Facsimile: (314) 744-4026
E-mail: fw@silversteinwolf.com
- and -
Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997-9150
Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com
- and -
Edward "Coach" Weinhaus, Esq.
LEGALSOLVED LLC
10859 Picadily Sq. Dr.
Creve Coeur, MO 63146
Telephone: (314) 580-9580
E-mail: eaweinhaus@gmail.com
EAST COAST: Faces Velez Suit Over Illegal Tip Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
LUIS VELEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EAST COAST VALET, INC., Defendant, Case No.
9:24-cv-80204 (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's enforcement of a company-wide policy that required
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to surrender their
earned tips exclusively for Defendant's benefit in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a valet attendant from 2011
through December 8, 2023. As a result, he and similarly situated
employees have been denied federal wages during various workweeks
within the relevant time period, says the Plaintiff.
East Coast Valet, Inc. operates a valet parking service with its
principal address located in Lantana, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
ELANCO ANIMAL: Settles Mislabeled Pet Collars Class Suit for $12-M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Elanco Animal Health and Bayer
agreed to pay $15 million to resolve a class action lawsuit
claiming Seresto flea and tick collars are dangerous and could pose
serious health risks to pets, and no proof of purchase is needed
for consumers to submit a claim.
The settlement benefits consumers in the U.S., its territories or
the District of Columbia who purchased any Seresto product for
personal use and not for resale before July 8, 2024.
According to the Seresto class action lawsuit, Seresto flea and
tick collars were misrepresented as being effective for eight
months while Elanco Health failed to disclose the health risks
associated with products. Seresto collars are allegedly associated
with serious neurological health risks and can even cause death,
the plaintiffs contend.
ClElanco Animal Health is a veterinary pharmaceutical company that
sells farm animal and pet health solutions. Elanco acquired Bayer
Animal Health in 2020.
Elanco and Bayer haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$15 million settlement to resolve the product safety class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Seresto class action lawsuit settlement,
class members can receive $13 for each collar they purchased.
Claimants who provide proof of purchase can claim an unlimited
number of collars, while claimants with no proof of purchase can
claim only two collars per pet for a maximum payment of $26 per
pet.
Class members whose pets were injured by the Seresto collars can
receive a $25 payment for economic losses or 100% reimbursement for
any documented out-of-pocket medical treatment costs.
Claimants whose pets were killed in connection to the Seresto
collars can receive a $300 payment and 100% reimbursement for
documented medical treatment costs and burial, cremation or other
disposal costs.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 23, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the Seresto class action lawsuit
settlement is scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form no later than July 23, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers in the U.S., its territories or the District of Columbia
who purchased any Seresto product for personal use and not for
resale before July 8, 2024.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Store receipts, online receipts, packaging, product photos, medical
bills, veterinarian declaration, bank statements, invoices.
Claim Form Deadline
07/23/2024
Case Name
In re: Seresto Flea and Tick Collar Marketing, Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04447, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Final Hearing
12/04/2024
Settlement Website
FleaAndTickCollarSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Seresto Settlement Claims Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
(866) 790-4447
Class Counsel
Michael Williams
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main St Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: (816) 945-7110
Rachel Soffin
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN37929
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Michael R Reese
REESE LLP
875 6th Ave
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Defense Counsel
John P Mandler
Andrea Roberts Pierson
Andrew L Campbell
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402 [GN]
ELECTRICAL MILLSGUT: Borjas Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Electricians
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT A. BORJAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRICAL MILLSGUT ENTERPRISE LLC
and SERGIO MILLAN, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00539 (M.D. Fla.,
February 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and retaliatory constructive discharge, and
breach of employment contracts.
Mr. Borjas was employed by the Defendants as a full-time,
non-exempt electrician from August 8, 2022, to September 29, 2022.
Electrical Millsgut Enterprise LLC is a construction company in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EUROPEAN WAX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-24-002874 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 29, 2024) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, INC. is a major chain of hair removal salons
that offers waxing services as well as products in the skincare,
body, and brow categories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Hopgood Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff WALTER HOPGOOD filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated February 13, 2024 entered in the lawsuit entitled
WALTER HOPGOOD, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., a
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01400, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
This lawsuit, filed on July 28, 2022, arises from Experian's
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that have allowed for a
spate of identity thefts perpetrated using Experian consumer
accounts. The Plaintiff, along with similarly situated Class
Members, allege that these identity thefts resulted from a
combination of Experian's inadequate security measures and
insufficient identity verification procedures related to
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Experian consumer accounts. The
Plaintiff further alleges that, because of Experian's insufficient
security measures, hackers and cybercriminals can easily and
repeatedly take control of the victims' Experian consumer accounts
or create new Experian accounts in victims' names. The
cybercriminals can then use the victims' Experian accounts to
facilitate identity theft, says the suit.
On October 26, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration which the Court granted on February 13, 2024 through an
Order entered by Judge John W. Holcomb. The Court further ruled
that the action is STAYED pending the resolution of the
arbitration. Hopgood was DIRECTED to submit his claims to
arbitration, pursuant to the terms of their respective Agreements.
The parties were DIRECTED to file a Joint Status Report no later
than May 17, 2024, and every 90 days thereafter, advising the Court
regarding the posture of the arbitration proceeding. Any party may
file a motion at any time to lift the stay, for good cause shown.
The Clerk was DIRECTED to close the case administratively.
The appellate case is captioned as Hopgood v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 24-911, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 21, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire due for Appellant was on February 26,
2024;
-- Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) for Appellant is on
April 3, 2024;
-- Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) for Appellee is on
May 3, 2024; and
-- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the
petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule
will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant WALTER HOPGOOD, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2652
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 418-6293
E-mail: mram@ForThePeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
Defendant-Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is
represented by:
Ryan Douglas Ball, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Dr Ste 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
E-mail: rball@jonesday.com
javogt@jonesday.com
FCA LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hybrid Battery Fire Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine McDaniel, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that
according to allegations raised in a recently filed class action
lawsuit, Jeep Wrangler plug-in hybrid electric vehicles sold in
recent years may contain batteries that are prone to explode or
catch fire, even while parked.
The complaint was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on March 4, on behalf of plaintiffs
from seven states, including Arizona, California, Florida, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The filing names
FCA, LLC, also known as Chrysler, as the defendant, and seeks class
action status to pursue damages on behalf of all buyers and lessees
of model year 2021 through 2023 Jeep Wrangler 4xe vehicles equipped
with electric batteries.
Plaintiffs indicate FCA issued a Jeep recall in November 2023,
warning owners that the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery
(PHEV) may fail. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) advised owners to avoid recharging the electric battery and
to park their vehicles outside and away from any structures until
they received the recall remedy.
Affected owners received a battery software update and replacement
battery if needed, but plaintiffs claim FCA failed to identify the
root cause or find a solution to the defect, leaving owners with
potentially hazardous vehicles that they cannot safely use.
Jeep Wrangler Battery Problems
In the complaint, plaintiffs indicate that some, but not all, of
the known vehicle fires occurred while the batteries were charging.
While FCA still claims the reason is unknown, plaintiffs allege the
root cause of the fires stems from a defect in the high-voltage
lithium-ion battery and related components of the vehicle's
electric mode.
Plaintiffs indicate the vehicles were equipped with batteries
manufactured by Samsung SDI America, Inc., which has known about
issues with its PHEV batteries since at least 2020. According to
the complaint, FCA has been aware of Samsung made battery issues
since at least 2020 as well.
Ford recalled certain Kuga PHEV models in August 2020 due to the
fire risks associated with batteries manufactured by Samsung, which
also warned owners to avoid charging them. Following several
vehicle fire complaints, BMW issued a similar recall of more than
26,000 PHEV models equipped with Samsung-manufactured batteries,
warning owners that debris entered the battery cells during
production, which could cause a vehicle fire.
Samsung issued a recall of its EV batteries due to poor
manufacturing quality, including those used to manufacture some FCA
models around 2022, the complaint indicates. However, FCA still did
not offer owners and lessees any remedy to correct the issue, only
telling them to refrain from recharging the electric battery and to
keep vehicles parked outside until a final repair was issued.
Jeep Hybrid Batteries Still Unsafe, Lawsuit Claims
Plaintiffs indicate FCA still has not offered a repair or solution
to the battery fire issues. Owners indicate the company sold them
vehicles they cannot safely drive or have near their home. The
complaint indicates owners have not been told how far away their
vehicles are supposed to be from other objects, or what owners
should do with them if they do not have a safe parking location.
Plaintiffs argue they paid thousands of dollars more for the
electric Jeep Wrangler version for the added environmental and
cost-saving benefits, but would have never purchased the allegedly
defective PHEV models if they had known about the battery problems
beforehand. Without a remedy or the ability to recharge the
electric battery, owners are left with an essentially useless
hybrid system they cannot use and any cost benefits they would have
gained with an electric vehicle are lost because they now have to
purchase gasoline to power them, the lawsuit indicates.
Another claim raised by plaintiffs alleges FCA failed to conduct
adequate stress and durability testing before releasing a
lithium-ion battery-powered vehicle. The complaint indicates the
automaker rushed to release the new PHEV model and would have
discovered the battery defects if it had performed the proper
pre-launch testing.
The plaintiffs request class action status on behalf of themselves
and other consumers who purchased or leased the affected vehicles,
seeking compensation for damages and a repair under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, for FCA's violations of state consumer
protection acts, breaches of implied warranties, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs also seek the establishment of an FCA-funded
program for affected consumers to reimburse them for any costs
associated with the allegedly defective hybrid system. [GN]
FIFTYONE MERCHANTS: Martinez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIFTYONE MERCHANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01537 (E.D.N.Y., February 29, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.viacarota.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Fiftyone Merchants, LLC is a company that sells goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
FINDLAY AND SONS: Faces Fuqua Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEYTON BROCK FUQUA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINDLAY AND SONS, INC. TOMMY CAR
WASH 2, and FINDLAY & SON'S, INC., D/B/A TOMMY EXPRESS CAR WASH,
and SCOTT FINDLAY, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00228 (M.D. Tenn.,
February 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and for retaliatory discharge.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-pad
employee at Tommy Express Car Wash in Tennessee.
Findlay and Sons Inc. Tommy Car Wash 2 is the owner and operator of
Tommy Express Car Wash facilities, located in Christiana,
Tennessee.
Findlay & Son's, Inc., doing business as Tommy Express Car Wash, is
the owner and operator of Tommy Express Car Wash facilities,
located in Christiana, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
FL 2518: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tijero Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
DANNY TIJERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FL 2518 LLC; and HARVEY J. ADELSON,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60349-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 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 Tijero was employed by the Defendants as a handyman.
FL 2518 LLC is a property management company for rental properties
located in Broward County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
FLO HEALTH: Court Certifies Period Tracker App Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a British Columbia Supreme Court
judge says a class-action lawsuit can move forward over alleged
privacy breaches against a company that made an app to track users'
menstrual and fertility cycles.
The ruling says the action against Flo Health Inc. alleges the
company shared users' highly personal health information with
third-parties, including Facebook, Google and other companies.
The ruling says the company's Flo Health & Period Tracker app is
available in more than 100 countries with millions of users around
the world, assisting women by tracking "all phases of their
reproductive cycle."
The decision that certifies the class-action says it would cover
more than one million users, who added personal information about
their menstrual cycles, and other data including their bodily
functions and when and how often they had sexual intercourse.
The proposed action covers more than a million Canadians who used
the app between June 2016 and February 2019, excluding those in
Quebec, where a separate class-action lawsuit was already certified
in November 2022.
The lawsuit alleges that Flo Health misused users' personal
information "for its own financial gain," claiming breach of
privacy, breach of confidence and "intrusion upon seclusion."
The lawsuit was spurred by a U.S. Federal Trade Commission decision
where Flo Health admitted it had sent users' private information
about their periods and pregnancies to data analytics divisions of
Google, Facebook and two other firms.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauren Blake agreed to certify the
class-action and appoint a representative plaintiff, saying "the
ever-increasing modern capacity to capture, store and retrieve
information in our digital age has led to a corresponding need for
the legal capacity to protect privacy. "
"Privacy legislation has been recognized as being accorded
quasi-constitutional status. In a similar manner, privacy torts --
such as intrusion upon seclusion and breach of confidence --
continue to evolve, and their proper scope in our modern world must
continue to be addressed by our courts," Blake's ruling says. [GN]
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Walling Securities Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER WALLING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. GENERAC HOLDINGS,
INC., AARON P. JAGFELD, and YORK A. RAGEN, Defendants, Case No.
23-cv-00808, was removed from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on February 22, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00808 to the proceeding.
The complaint is a federal securities class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired GNRC
stock between May 3, 2023 and August 3, 2023, inclusive, against
Generac and certain of its officers and/or directors for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by failing to disclose pertinent
information relevant to the Company, or, alternatively providing
information about the Company which was misleading or deceptive,
says the suit.
Generac Holdings, Inc. designs, engineers and markets standby power
generators.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Frank, Esq.
MALLERY SC
731 North Jackson Street, Suite 900
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 271-2424
Facsimile: (414) 271-8678
E-mail: afrank@mallerysc.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
GENERAL MILLS: Cereals Contain Chlormequat Chloride, Epstein Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN EPSTEIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-01551 (S.D.N.Y., February 29, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the New York General
Business Law, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of oat based cereal
brand Cheerios. The Defendant failed to disclose that the product
contains dangerous levels of the chemical pesticide chlormequat
chloride. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known
that the product contains chlormequat chloride, they would not have
purchased it. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit.
General Mills, Inc. is a food processing company, with its
principal place of business in Golden Valley, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
HEALTH CARE: Burger Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA REYNOLDS BURGER is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Barbara Reynolds Burger,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Health Care Management Solutions, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01215-RDB, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants for
their failure to secure and safeguard her and other individuals'
personally identifying information (PII) and personal health
information (PHI) following a data breach. The Plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract or
alternatively unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and
declaratory judgment.
On July 10, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Richard
D. Bennett on Feb. 7, 2024. Judge Bennett finds that Burger has not
alleged facts sufficient to establish Article III standing to sue.
Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Barbara Burger v. Health Care
Management Solutions, LLC, Case No. 24-1180, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on February 28,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BARBARA REYNOLDS BURGER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
888 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Defendants-Appellees HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.
are represented by:
Elizabeth Anne Scully, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 861-1698
- and -
Jessica Lynn Farmer, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
800 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 955-3000
HUT 8 MINING: Faces Suit Over Alleged Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Mutuma, writing for CoinGape, reports that Hut 8 Mining
Corp., one of the leading blockchain companies, became the subject
of a legal investigation following the series of allegations that
have significantly influenced its stock price on the Nasdaq stock
exchange. Initially fueled by JCapital, a company involved in short
selling that made accusations against the company's management, the
price of the stocks significantly decreased, and the management was
suddenly forced to face the music.
Cases in the Court and Shareholder Damages
The Hut 8 has recently been charged with a securities class action
suit. The suit has been filed against anyone who was damaged
between 9th November 2023 and 19th January 2024. The company dealt
with a persistent plunge in the value of the shares during this
phase, whose apex was a grievous crash of $7.12 to $2.16 on January
19, when JCapital's unaccepting report was published.
The report, which also included claims of possible insider trading
and criticism of Hut 8's $725 million merger with US Bitcoin
(USBTC), named the related party as "an undisclosed" investor who
held a significant stake in the transaction. The report thus
indicated that the merger might be against the interests of
investors.
In addition, a few law firms, for instance, the Gross Law Firm,
Kuznicki Law, Levi & Korsinsky, and Berger Montague, have come out,
pledging to assist investors in seeking their claims through class
actions. Companies, in this case, cite federal securities laws that
obliged Hut 8 and its management to act honestly as a basis of
their actions, asserting that they misled financial information,
which was supposedly causing the decrease in Hut 8's share price.
Furthermore, the combination with USBTC was subjected to scrutiny
and reports of failure to diligently disclose the
interdependencies, which resulted in operational challenges that
were not adequately addressed by the leadership.
Hut 8 responded to this change in mining protocol
After all, the Hut 8 company ironically denied all the claims,
simply saying that the last article was nothing but another
deliberate misinformation campaign spreading short sellers'
benefits. The company asserted that it was completely legitimate in
the statement that it made all legally required disclosures and
that this report was an unethical tool used to capitalize on its
share prices for financial benefit. The media offered mixed
responses to Hut 8's situation, with the company leadership being
affected by the event as well. Jaime Leverton resigned as CEO, and
Asher Genoot replaced her.
Additionally, Hut 8 has made the strategic decision to close its
mining facility in Drumheller, Alberta, Canada, citing disruptions
in power supply and rising energy costs. This move is part of a
broader strategy to navigate the challenges presented by the
current energy crisis in the cryptocurrency mining sector. The
closure reflects the company's efforts to mitigate the impact of
these external pressures and focus on sustaining its operations
amid fluctuating market conditions. [GN]
HY-VEE INC: Court Dismisses Overharged 401(k) Plan Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamstra, writing for Supermarket News, reports that a U.S.
District Court judge in Iowa ruled in favor of Hy-Vee in a
class-action suit alleging that the retailer overcharged
participants in its 401(k) retirement plan.
The suit had claimed that Hy-Vee had assessed excessive fees for
recordkeeping in its administration of the plan, which was managed
by Principal Life Insurance Co. The court, however, ruled that
Hy-Vee had done appropriate due diligence in researching the
administrative fees, and in fact had reduced fees during the period
in question, from 2016-2022.
"There is simply no basis for a reasonable factfinder to conclude
that defendants [Hy-Vee] breached their fiduciary duties," the
court ruled.
The plaintiffs, Theresa L. Rodriguez, Zachary M. Shank, Michael P.
Mansberger, Heidi L. Detra, and Tim Campbell, claimed in their
class-action suit that Hy-Vee did not do enough to minimize the
recordkeeping fees for the 401(k) retirement plan during the
period. The suit was filed last May in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, naming Hy-Vee, its board of
directors, the retailer's retirement plan investment committee, and
other unspecified parties.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen H. Locher ruled, however, that
Hy-Vee's retirement plan committee had adequate processes in place
to monitor and evaluate the fees that plan participants were
charged. He also said that the plaintiffs' efforts to show that
other companies' retirement plans offered lower fees were
inadequate, as these plans were not necessarily representative of
the market as a whole and did not appear to be an
"apples-to-apples" comparison.
According to his summary motion to dismiss the suit, the fees for
administering the plan fell from a high of $92.64 in 2007 to $36.93
in 2021. The plaintiffs in their suit had argued that fees should
have fallen even more during the period in question.
The suit was filed on behalf of more than 55,000 participants in
Hy-Vee's 401(k) plan, which has more than $2 billion in assets.
The legal counsels for the plaintiffs could not be reached for
comment. A spokesperson for Hy-Vee could also not be reached. [GN]
I-PACK EXPRESS: De Pino Sues Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
ROSA MENDEZ DE PINO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. I-PACK EXPRESS CORP. d/b/a
I-PACK EXPRESS, ILAN HAZAN, and PASKAL HAZAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-01573 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
breaching the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
In or around April 2022, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work
as a scanner for Defendants’ I-Pack Express. Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants terminated in or about August 2023.
Throughout her employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to clock
out at the end of her scheduled shift and made her keep working
off-the-clock. As a result, Plaintiff actually worked around 42 to
44 hours per week. However, she were only paid for up to 40 hours
every week. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide wage
notices to her at the beginning of their employment with
Defendants, in violation of the Wage Theft Protection Act, says the
Plaintiff.
Based in Inwood, NY, I-Pack Express Corp. provides logistics
services under the trade name I-Pack Express. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
INSIDER INC: Gabrielli Sues Over Unauthorized IP Address Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GABRIELLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIDER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01566-ER (S.D.N.Y., February 29, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant installed and used the
Audiencerate Tracker on the internet browsers of its website
visitors to collect their IP addresses without consent.
Audiencerate then provides analytics and marketing services to the
Defendant using the data collected from visitors when they visited
the website and from when they visited other websites that included
the tracker, says the suit.
Insider, Inc. is a company that owns and operates the website
https://www.businessinsider.com, with its principal place of
business in New York City, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Habelt Files Writ of Certiorari Extension
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK HABELT filed on February 23, 2024, a request to extend time to
file for a petition of writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court, under Case No. 23-791, seeking a review of the ruling of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case
captioned Mark Habelt, Applicant vs. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 22-15660.
On February 27, 2024, Court Justice Elena Kagan granted the request
and extended the time to file for a petition of writ of certiorari
until April 4, 2024.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in 2021, Mark
Habelt was the first shareholder to file a securities fraud class
action against digital healthcare company iRhythm Technologies
(IRTC.O), accusing the company in federal court in San Francisco of
misleading investors with overly optimistic statements about U.S.
regulatory proceedings to set a reimbursement rate for iRhythm's
premier heart monitoring product. iRhythm's share price dropped
sharply when the reimbursement rate was ultimately slashed from
$311 to $115.
Habelt did not ask to be appointed to lead the class action when
institutional investors emerged in the case. But even after a
Mississippi pension fund was designated lead plaintiff and filed
amended complaints on behalf of the class, Habelt's name remained
on the pleadings.
On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021.
The amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to iRhythm
Technologies and Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Michael J. Coyle, and former Chief Financial Officer and former
Chief Operating Officer, Douglas J. Devine.
The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class.
On October 27, 2021, iRhythm Technologies filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court granted on March 31, 2022, entering
judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants.
On April 29, 2022, the original named plaintiff appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On October 11, 2023, after briefing by the parties and oral
argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
The appellant has stated that he intends to file a petition for
rehearing en banc. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner MARK HABELT, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Xiao Wang, Esq.
University of Virginia, School of Law
Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
E-mail: x.wang@law.virginia.edu
IROBOT CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over Merger With Amazon
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against iRobot Corporation ("iRobot" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:IRBT) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 24-cv-02138, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired iRobot securities between August 5, 2022 and
January 26, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired iRobot
securities during the Class Period, you have until May 7, 2024 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
iRobot designs, builds, and sells robots and home innovation
products in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, and
internationally. The Company is primarily known for its robot
vacuum cleaner ("RVC") products sold under the "Roomba" brand
name.
In August 2022, iRobot and Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon"), which sells
iRobot's RVCs on its online marketplace, announced their entry into
a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which Amazon would "acquire iRobot for $61 per share in an all-cash
transaction valued at approximately $1.7 billion, including
iRobot's net debt" (the "Merger").
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(i) the Merger would place Amazon in a sufficiently dominant
position in the market for RVCs that U.S. and European antitrust
regulators were unlikely to approve the Merger;
(ii) iRobot had conducted inadequate due diligence into the Merger
and/or ignored significant risks weighing against the likelihood of
regulatory approval;
(iii) as a result of all the foregoing, iRobot overstated the
likelihood for successfully completing the Merger; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On June 22, 2023, news outlets reported that Europe's antitrust
regulator, the European Commission ("EC"), was planning to launch a
full-scale investigation into the Merger.
On this news, iRobot's stock price fell $4.12 per share, or 8.32%,
to close at $45.41 per share on June 22, 2023.
On November 27, 2023, the EC announced that it "has informed Amazon
of its preliminary view that its proposed acquisition of iRobot may
restrict competition in the market for [RVCs]." In particular, the
EC advised that, "[a]s a result of [its] in-depth investigation,
the [EC] is concerned that Amazon may restrict competition in the
European Economic Area (‘EEA')-wide and/or national markets for
RVCs, by hampering rival RVC suppliers' ability to effectively
compete" (emphasis in original).
On this news, iRobot's stock price fell $7.13 per share, or 17.19%,
to close at $34.35 per share on November 27, 2023.
On January 10, 2024, news outlets reported that Amazon did not
offer concessions to the EC to appease the regulator's concerns
about the Merger. For example, POLITICO reported that day that
"[t]he European Union's webpage on the deal shows that the
companies didn't make an offer by the end of the day, its last
chance to tackle European Union objections that Amazon could hamper
rival vacuum cleaners' sales on Amazon's online marketplace."
On this news, iRobot's stock price fell $7.33 per share, or 19.77%,
to close at $29.75 per share on January 10, 2024.
On January 18, 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that "[t]he
European Union's competition watchdog intends to block Amazon's
$1.7 billion bid to purchase Roomba maker iRobot," citing "people
familiar with the matter[.]"
On January 19, 2024, Bloomberg separately reported that the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") was drafting a lawsuit to block
the Merger.
Following these reports, iRobot's stock price fell $6.36 per share,
or 26.93%, to close at $17.26 per share on January 19, 2024.
Then, on January 29, 2024, Amazon and iRobot announced their entry
"into a mutual agreement" to terminate the previously announced
Merger. Concurrently, iRobot announced the resignation of its Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, as well
as plans to cut approximately 31% of its workforce.
Later the same day, Reuters reported that FTC staff had notified
Amazon the week before that it planned to block the Merger.
Following these disclosures, iRobot's stock price fell $1.49 per
share, or 8.77%, to close at $15.50 per share on January 29, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in
damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
J.B. HUNT: Williams Appeals Final Judgment in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs WILLIE WILLIAMS, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Final Judgment dated January 25, 2024 and Order
dated March 9, 2022 entered in the lawsuit styled WILLIE WILLIAMS,
LaDON CLINE, AND PAUL CONTRERAS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
8:20-cv-01701-PSG-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
This case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the Central District of
California on September 3, 2020.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated California Labor
Code by: (1) failing to pay all wages for non-driving time in
violation of California Labor Code; (2) failing to provide meal
breaks; (3) failing to provide rest breaks; (4) failing to
reimburse for work expenses; (5) failing to issue accurate itemized
wage statements; (6) failing to pay all wages upon termination; and
(7) engaging in unfair business practices in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code.
On August 23, 2021, the Court granted the parties joint stipulation
to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs' meal and rest
break claims in the Second and Third Causes of Action of the First
Amended Complaint.
Thereafter, on March 9, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment
against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs' First
Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to pay all wages for
non-driving time (the First Cause of Action), for failure to issue
accurate itemized wage statements (the Fifth Cause of Action), for
late payment of wages and waiting time penalties (the Sixth Cause
of Action); and for unlawful and/or unfair business practices (the
Seventh Cause of Action) and for violation of the Private Attorney
Generals Act (the Eighth Cause of Action) to the extent the latter
two claims were predicated on Plaintiffs' First, Fifth, and Sixth
Causes of Action. The Court also granted summary judgment against
Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendant as to Plaintiffs' Eighth Cause
of Action to the extent it was based on violations California Labor
Code Section 1174(d) and sought to recover penalties under
California Labor Code.
On January 11, 16, and 17, 2024, the Court conducted a jury trial
on Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action for failure to indemnify for
all necessary expenditures in violation of California Labor Code
Section 2802; and heard evidence on Plaintiffs' Seventh Cause of
Action for unlawful and/or unfair business practices and Eighth
Cause of Action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General
Act to the extent they were predicated on Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause
of Action. On January 17, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs on the Fourth Cause of
Action.
Based on the jury's findings, the Court found in favor of Defendant
and against Plaintiffs on their individual claims in the Seventh
Cause of Action for unlawful and/or unfair business practices and
in the Eighth Cause of Action for penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Action to the extent they were predicated on
Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action. The Court dismissed without
prejudice the claims of allegedly aggrieved employees for failure
to indemnify for all necessary expenditures in violation of
California Labor Code Section 2802 under the Private Attorneys
General Act.
Based on the jury's verdict, the Court's prior summary judgment and
dismissal orders in the case, and the Court's finding in favor of
Defendant and against Plaintiffs on their individual claims under
the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action, the Court entered a Final
Judgment on January 25, 2024 in favor of Defendant against
Plaintiffs on all Causes of Action in Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint. The Plaintiffs shall take nothing by way of their First
Amended Complaint, the action is dismissed with prejudice as to
Plaintiffs, and Defendant shall recover costs pursuant to a Bill of
Costs filed in accordance with Local Rule 54-2 and 28 U.S.C.
Section 1920, ruled the Court.
The appellate case is captioned as Williams, et al. v. J.B. Hunt
Transport Services, Inc., Case No. 24-933, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 21,
2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on February 26,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due on March 5,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on April 4, 2024;
-- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on May 14, 2024;
-- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on June 14, 2024;
and
-- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the
petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule
will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIE WILLIAMS, LaDON CLINE, AND PAUL
CONTRERAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Aashish Y, Desai, Esq.
Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
DESAI LAW FIRM PC
3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (949) 614-5830
E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
KAG WEST: Estrada FEHA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KAG WEST, LLC and DOES 1-100, Case No.
BCV-23-100810, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on February 29, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:24-at-00175 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's disability discrimination,
failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive
process in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), wrongful termination in violation of Public Policy,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to
deliver personnel file.
KAG West, LLC is a transportation company based in West Sacramento,
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian L. Johnsrud, Esq.
Daniel E. Lassen, Esq.
Ivan Munoz, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
260 Homer Avenue, Suite 202
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 847-4150
Facsimile: (650) 847-4151
E-mail: bjohnsrud@duanemorris.com
delassen@duanemorris.com
imunoz@duanemorris.com
KENVUE INC: Shares Rose 1.7% After Tylenol Cases Dismissal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Fineman, writing for SA News, reports that Kenvue
(NYSE:KVUE) rose 1.7% after a federal judge issued a final judgment
in favor of the company and issued a final dismissal on all Tylenol
cases under consideration.
US District Judge Denise L. Cote dismissed the class action
lawsuits, which alleged that prenatal exposure to Tylenol may
contribute to autism or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The cases were dismissed, with some having no refiling rights under
the same court/claims, according to a Citi note from analyst
Filippo Falorni.
The update comes after Judge Cote late last month dismissed the
case that involved hundreds of plaintiffs, according to a court
filing. The dismissals come after Cote in December said that after
a Daubert hearing that the plaintiffs didn't have "admissible
evidence" to demonstrate that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen
causes either ASD or ADHD in offspring.
Kenvue shares jumped 7% on Dec. 7 after a hearing to determine
whether the plaintiffs had enough expert evidence to prove their
claims and to determine the admissibility of the evidence. [GN]
KIMBERLY CLARK: High Court Confirms Flushable Wipes' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyse Kotyk, writing for CTVNewsVancouver.ca, reports B.C.'s
Supreme Court has confirmed a national class action lawsuit against
Kimberly-Clark Corporation following a 2020 recall of flushable
wipes over possible bacteria contamination.
Slater Vecchio, a B.C. law firm, said it's representing Canadian
claimants who may have suffered injury from Cottonelle flushable
wipes purchased after Feb. 7, 2020. Products were recalled in
October of that year(opens in a new tab) by Kimberly-Clark due to
the possibility of Pluralibacter gergoviae bacterium, which can
cause infections, especially in those with weakened immune systems.
A 2023 B.C. Supreme Court ruling determined claims would be
resolved through a class action. The class action was confirmed in
a ruling on Jan. 19.
"This judgment clarifies that there is indeed a certified class
action lawsuit for persons residing anywhere in Canada. It remains
Slater Vecchio LLP's priority that persons who claim to have been
harmed by these allegedly defective Cottonelle-branded products
have access to justice," said Saro Turner, a partner at Slater
Vecchio LLP, in a statement.
"Additionally, the Jan. 19 decision is important for class action
law as it reinforces the finality of certification orders. When a
court certifies a class action, only extraordinary and
unanticipated changes in circumstances would merit reconsideration
of such a decision."
None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been tested in court.
"Kimberly-Clark and our Cottonelle brand are deeply committed to
the safety and quality of our products. We’re pleased that the
court narrowed the scope of this matter," a spokesperson for the
company said in an emailed statement sent to CTV News Vancouver.
"Cottonelle is proud to serve the millions of Canadians who use our
products every day and we appreciate the trust they show in our
brand."
Plaintiff alleges body pain, inflammation
Representative plaintiff Linda Bowman told the court last year she
began purchasing Cottonelle flushable wipes in 2020 and bought a
large box of them at Costco. She stated she used the wipes several
times each day because of underlying health issues.
Bowman alleged she developed inflamed pubic hair follicles after
using the wipes, adding her pre-existing back and body pain became
worse.
"She also developed inflamed skin follicles in other areas where
she uses the wipes including her mouth, nose, arms, breasts, and
buttocks," Justice Sharon Matthews' 2023 ruling said. "She deposed
that the inflammation is painful."
Infectious disease expert Dr. Abdu Sharkawy provided a deposition
in 2023, explaining P. gergoviae exists in the gastrointestinal
tract and "has the potential to cause serious infections, including
life threatening infections in persons with compromised immune
systems."
"He deposed that environments that are poorly sanitized are more
likely to promote greater numbers of this type of organism, and if
the hygienic standards are compromised in a manufacturing facility,
the organism may be more frequently identified in the manufactured
product," Matthews' decision reads.
"Dr. Sharkawy opined that products that contain P. gergoviae are
not safe for use by humans. He deposed that even a small amount
could cause serious infection in a given host and so it is
difficult to determine what might constitute a negligible versus
significant quantity of P. gergoviae in flushable wipes."
Expanded recall
Kimberly-Clark asserted its recall program was "overly broad out of
caution," explaining the contamination was "intermittent on one of
two production lines." Even so, the company told the court, all of
the lots produced on that line were recalled, even if they weren't
contaminated.
The company initially recalled its 10-pack Cottonelle flushable
wipes sold at Costco between Feb. 14, 2020, and Oct. 8, 2020. But
about two weeks later, Health Canada expanded that recall(opens in
a new tab) to include six different products.
Health Canada warned consumers to stop using the product
immediately.
Through its 2020 recall, Kimberly-Clark issued 11,651 refunds to
Canadian buyers totalling more than $214,000. The company also
received 149 claims from Canadian consumers alleging personal
injury after using the recalled products. As of the 2023 ruling,
all but eight of those injury claims were resolved, according to
Matthews' decision. [GN]
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Substances
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for classaction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges Kimberly-Clark Corporation's
negligent operation of its New Milford, Connecticut, manufacturing
facility has contaminated nearby properties with toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The 40-page forever chemicals lawsuit claims Kimberly-Clark makes
products at the New Milford facility, such as Huggies diapers and
Kleenex and Scott tissues, that are known to commonly incorporate
PFAS in their manufacturing processes. The suit contends that the
facility's stack emissions have caused the chemicals to go
"airborne, travel, and ultimately deposit" dangerous levels of PFAS
into the soil and drinking water wells belonging to neighboring
residents.
According to the filing, PFAS are a large group of artificial
chemicals that have been used since at least the 1940s to make a
wide variety of products resistant to water, dirt, oil, grease and
heat. Often referred to as "forever chemicals," PFAS do not break
down under typical environmental conditions and can accumulate in
the human body over time, the suit says.
The complaint stresses that exposure to PFAS has been linked to a
host of negative health effects, including various types of cancer,
decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, suppressed
immune function, higher cholesterol levels and more.
Per the case, two of the plaintiffs are New Milford residents who
live within three miles of the defendant's facility. The plaintiffs
claim that in 2023, laboratory analysis of soil samples taken
throughout the area surrounding the facility, as well as testing of
the drinking water in their private wells, revealed concentrations
of PFAS recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as
harmful to human health.
"The predominant winds and topography of the area mean that similar
PFAS chemical concentrations would likely be observed in the water
found in drinking water wells located near [the plaintiffs']
drinking water wells," the lawsuit says.
The complaint alleges that these test results can be traced back to
Kimberly-Clark's failure to implement proper procedures to prevent,
control or eliminate its release of PFAS into the environment.
"Kimberly-Clark's conduct caused [the plaintiffs] and the members
of the class to unknowingly ingest and absorb PFAS chemicals
including by, but not limited to, ingesting PFAS-contaminated
drinking water originating from PFAS-contaminated drinking water
wells located on their own properties and others located in New
Milford, Connecticut, ingesting food cooked with this water, and
ingesting food grown in soil contaminated with PFAS chemicals," the
filing contends.
The case stresses that the company has substantially increased New
Milford residents' risk of developing cancers and other conditions
associated with PFAS exposure. What's more, residents whose
properties have been contaminated can no longer enjoy their natural
water sources for drinking, cooking or other ordinary household
uses, the complaint notes.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, during the applicable
statute of limitations period, owned real property located in New
Milford, Connecticut, or surrounding towns whose land and/or water
supply have been contaminated with detectable levels of PFAS as a
result of Kimberly-Clark's allegedly improper use and/or disposal
of the chemicals.
The suit also seeks to cover anyone who, during the applicable
statute of limitations period, resided at a home in New Milford,
Connecticut, or surrounding towns and ingested PFAS-contaminated
water such that PFAS accumulated in their body and tissue. This
also includes any natural child born to a resident who meets and/or
met these criteria at the time of the child's birth. [GN]
LAKESIDE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
HERMELINDA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. LAKESIDE MEDICAL ORGANIZATION, A
MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; HERITAGE PROVIDER
NETWORK, INC., a California Corporation; MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24GDCV00391 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 1, 2024) seeks to recover civil penalties, reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code.
Among other things, the class action arises from the Defendants'
failure to provide employment records and failure to pay legally
required minimum, overtime, and double time wages.
Plaintiff Martinez was hired by Defendants as HCC STAR Coordinator
on or about October 1, 2018. Throughout his employment with the
Defendants, she was never reimbursed for the necessary
business-related expenses she incurred, says the Plaintiff.
Lakeside Medical Organization is a California Corporation who
operates as a healthcare organization that provides comprehensive
medical services to patients in the greater Los Angeles area.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Christina N. Mirzaie, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
christina@hbklawyers.com
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Suit Over Identity Theft, Credit Freezes
---------------------------------------------------------------
SC Media reports that LexisNexis Risk Data Management has been hit
with a class action lawsuit from over 18,000 New Jersey law
enforcement personnel alleging that data broker responded to their
data takedown requests with credit freezes and false identity theft
victim reports between December and January, according to The
Record, a news site by cybersecurity firm Recorded Future.
Reporting identity theft and credit freezes were noted by
LexisNexis in letters of retribution sent to impacted individuals
to potentially result in a denial of health, financial, and
insurance services, claimed the lawsuit, which also alleged that
information belonging to the plaintiffs and their family members
continued to be shared by the data broker despite being a violation
of the state's Daniel's Law. "LexisNexis has engaged in a prolonged
effort to thwart Plaintiffs' efforts to lift these credit freezes.
Plaintiffs believe this is part of an unlawful effort by LexisNexis
and others to punish and deter attempts to seek compliance with
Daniel's Law, resulting in substantial and ongoing harm," said the
lawsuit. [GN]
LYFT INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LYFT). Such
investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at or
646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether Lyft and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
You have until , to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise
acquired Lyft securities between 4:05 p.m. and 4:51 p.m. on
February 13, 2024 (the "Class Period"). A copy of the Complaint can
be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On February 13, 2024, at 4:05 p.m., Lyft issued a press release
reporting its financial and operating results from the fourth
quarter of 2023. The press release stated that Lyft anticipated an
"[a]djusted EBITDA margin expansion . . . of approximately 500
basis points year-over-year." In fact, Lyft only anticipated a
50-basis-point margin expansion. Following Lyft's misstatement, the
Company's stock priced surged from its closing price of $12.13 per
share to a high of $20.25 per share in aftermarket trading. On that
same day, Lyft hosted a scheduled conference call to discuss the
Company's results, during which Chief Financial Officer Erin Brewer
acknowledged and corrected the error in Lyft's earnings release and
clarified that the Company anticipated margin expansion of only 50
basis points, not 500. The Company subsequently issued a corrected
earnings release at 6:02 p.m. on that same day.
Following Lyft's correction of its error, the Company's stock price
fell $0.27 per share, or 2.18%, to close at $12.13 per share,
damaging investors on February 13, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
600 3rd Ave
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
MACY'S RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sykes Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SYKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, dba MACY'S;
MACY'S, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2024-00009502-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Feb.
29, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Sykes was employed by the Defendants as a sales
associate.
MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS INC. owns and operates department stores.
The Company offers shoes, bed, bath, and cosmetic products,
apparel, accessories, and jewelry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
Artur Tunyan, Esq.
TUNYAN LAW, APC
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 285
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 410-5050
Email: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com
atunyan@tunyanlaw.com
- and -
Garen Majarian, Esq.
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0802
Email: garen@majarianlawgroup.com
sahag@majarianlawgroup.com
MARIVALE: Settles Underpayment Class Suit for $18-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------
cimbusinessevents.com.au reports that Merivale will pay out $18
million after settling an underpayment class action that stemmed
from allegations it underpaid as many as 14,000 employees $129
million.
The 'without-admission' settlement will see around $8.6 million go
towards legal costs and the litigation funder's commission.
"Merivale strongly denies these allegations and continues to do
so," a spokeswoman for Merivale said.
"In agreeing to the settlement, the parties (and Merivale) sought
to end the class action on a commercial basis and avoid the further
time and costs of litigation, noting that the class action had
already been on foot since December 2019."
The settlement follows a Federal Court ruling that found Merivale's
2007 agreement, which it relied on to pay staff for more than 10
years, was invalidly approved.
"Any alleged failure by Merivale to pay group members in accordance
with the award was caused by the erroneous decision of the
Workplace Authority in relation to the Merivale agreement, and was
not the result of any attempt by Merivale to pay group members
anything less than they were entitled to by law," the parties said
in an agreed statement. [GN]
MCJ PROFESSIONAL: Caballero Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL S. CABALLERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCJ PROFESSIONAL CLEANING
SERVICES, CORP. and MARIA J. WATSON, Defendants, Case No.
0:24-cv-60343-RS (S.D. Fla., February 29, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for
retaliatory discharge.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a lead cleaning
employee from approximately August 14, 2023, through December 15,
2023.
MCJ Professional Cleaning Services, Corp. is a cleaning company
based in Pompano Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: DiCroce Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN DICROCE filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a
decision in her lawsuit entitled Kristin DiCroce, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McNeil
Nutritionals, LLC and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 22-1910, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
DiCroce brings deceptive trade practices and false advertising
claims against McNeil and Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"). At issue are
certain statements on the packaging of the Defendants' product
Lactaid that allegedly portray Lactaid as a drug rather than a
dietary supplement.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which the Court
granted through an Order entered by Judge Patti B. Saris on April
8, 2022. Judge Saris finds that DiCroce has failed to plausibly
allege an injury-in-fact. Therefore, she allowed the Defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice to filing an amended complaint
within 30 days.
DiCroce promptly filed an Amended Complaint that brings three
causes of action: violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A, and other states' consumer
protection statutes (Count I); unjust enrichment (Count II); and
false advertising in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 266, Section
91 (Count III). The Plaintiff brings the Amended Complaint on
behalf of the proposed class of persons who purchased Lactaid
products and are from states with laws concerning consumer
protection, unjust enrichment, and false advertising substantially
similar to Massachusetts. The Defendants again moved to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for lack of standing. The Court heard
argument on August 16, 2022.
On November 10, 2022, Judge Patti B. Saris entered a Memorandum and
Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Amended Complaint
was dismissed with prejudice.
On November 22, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the
District Court decision and entered judgment on September 18, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc,
which was denied on November 29, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Kristin DiCroce, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Petitioner vs. McNeil
Nutritionals, LLC and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
Respondents, Case No. 23-919, in the Supreme Court of United
States, filed on February 26, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner KRISTIN DICROCE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
John Peter Zavez, Esq.
ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
90 Canal Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 367-1040
E-mail: jzavez@akzlaw.com
NEUTRON HOLDINGS: Lacks Autorenewal Term Disclosure, Murrin Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MURRIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a LIME, and DOES
1-10, Defendant(s), Case No. 3:24-cv-01259-RFL (N.D. Cal., March 1,
2024) alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and
the California Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute of the California
Business & Professions Code.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant debiting
Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a
recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or
similarly authenticated for pre-authorized electronic fund
transfers from Plaintiffs' and also the putative Class members'
accounts, thereby violating Section 907(a) of the EFTA.
Additionally, Defendant failed to properly inform consumers of its
autorenewal terms, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Neutron Holdings, Inc. is
engaged in the business of renting out scooters to consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Matthew R. Snyder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
msnyder@toddflaw.com
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Over Cultural Fishing Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Milton, writing for ABC South East NSW, reports that Native
title holders on the NSW south coast are taking their legal battles
to a new front after fighting for cultural fishing rights in local
courts for decades.
They will file a class action in the Federal Court which could
result in more than 10,000 people being eligible for a compensation
payout from the NSW government for the criminalisation of
traditional fishing practices that are protected under Commonwealth
native title law.
The claim asserts that the NSW government has breached the Racial
Discrimination Act, with devastating consequences for Aboriginal
fishers and the entire community's health, family cohesion and the
passing down of saltwater culture across generations.
"A lot of our divers have no other criminal records except for
diving, and they're being sent to jail," said Steve Clarke, a
Bidjigal-Wodi Wodi-Wandean man from Nowra, south of Sydney.
Mr Clarke was taught to dive for abalone and lobster as a child,
and as the eldest in his family, he has a cultural responsibility
to provide for his extended family.
But after years of surveillance and prosecution by fisheries
compliance officers, paying thousands of dollars in fishing fines
and serving jail time for unpaid fines, he gave up diving in his
late 20s.
"I'd like to continue to carry on those skills and teachings, but
in doing so I'm putting my sons and my nephews at risk of going to
jail," Mr Clarke said.
"It takes away your rights, your tradition, and your identity as a
strong Aboriginal man."
'Chilling effect' on culture
Solicitor Tristan Gaven is acting for the class action claim group,
which includes more than 10,000 Indigenous people on the NSW south
coast.
He has been involved with successful Stolen Wages and Stolen
Generations class action cases that have forced state and federal
governments to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation
to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and Western
Australia.
"I don't think it's controversial to say that the [fishing]
industry is being protected by the NSW government, to some extent
at the expense of the south coast community," Mr Gaven said.
"A lot of people have expressed to us that these prosecutions are
having a chilling effect on the practice of cultural fishing, which
is a real tragedy."
Mr Gaven said the community deserved compensation for the wrongs of
the past, but the claim would also put financial pressure on the
government to change its policies into the future.
"Class actions are increasingly becoming a way to push for systemic
change," he said.
Taking the battle to a new front
The NSW south coast cultural fishing class action is the first of
its kind in NSW.
It comes after a series of cases brought by the NSW government
against Aboriginal fishers have been dismissed or withdrawn in
local courts.
Solicitor Kathryn Ridge said she had successfully defended 14 south
coast native title holders facing prosecution over fishing
matters.
She said some of her clients had charges repeatedly laid and
withdrawn before they could be tested in court.
"These are very long, difficult, expensive proceedings," Ms Ridge
said.
"There's a lot of wear and tear not only on the south coast
community, but also on the fisheries compliance officers that are
involved."
She said local courts were not the right place to test native title
holders' rights.
"The problem is at a much higher level, and that's where the
injustice is, and I think the class action is better placed to deal
with that injustice," she said.
Mr Clarke said the class action was a chance to restore his culture
and identity.
"I was raised to stand up for what I believe in and not take a
backward step, but I don't want my sons go to jail," Mr Clarke
said.
"We are very resilient people, we just have to keep standing up for
future generations."
In a statement, a spokesperson for the NSW Minister for Agriculture
said the matters were socially and legally complex.
The NSW government is working its way through them to ensure any
regulation and enforcement balances the needs of fish conservation,
cultural sensitivities and community needs," they said. [GN]
NFHS NETWORK: Kasper Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE KASPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NFHS NETWORK, LLC., a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00383 (C.D. Cal.,
February 23, 2024) arises from the Defendant's violations of the
Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Business &
Professions Code due to unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's and
Class Members' private information about their personal
video-viewing habits and activities.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sells subscriptions by
which Plaintiff and other Class Members may view prerecorded
videos. The Plaintiff and other Class Members are therefore
subscribers of the video services offered by Defendant as described
in the Video Privacy Protection Act. Despite a clear legal
obligation to keep Plaintiff's and other Class Members' video
choices private, NFHS Network chose to affirmatively disclose this
information to third parties, including Meta Platforms Inc.,
formerly known as Facebook, and Google LLC without Plaintiff's or
other Class Members' consent, says the suit.
The Plaintiff accordingly brings this class action on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated to recover actual and
statutory damages against NFHS Network for its unlawful conduct.
NFHS Network LLC is a streaming platform for live and on demand
high school sports and events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Christina Tusan, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
ctusan@hammondlawpc.com
abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Radiator Cooling Fan Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges 2013-2017 Nissan Pathfinder and 2014-2017
Infiniti QX60 vehicles are plagued by a defect that can cause the
SUVs' radiator cooling fans to malfunction and fail.
The 41-page Nissan lawsuit relays that the apparent cooling fan
defect can cause in affected Pathfinder and QX60 models a loud
rattling, squealing or clacking sound in the front of the engine
and can ultimately cause overheating and engine failure. The suit
alleges manufacturer Nissan North America has known of the radiator
cooling fan problem since at least 2013, if not before, yet
concealed the defect from the public.
According to the suit, the cooling fan defect renders the
Pathfinder and QX60 models at issue unsafe, unreliable and unfit
for their intended purpose, as the flaw poses an unreasonable
safety hazard. Per the complaint, Nissan has deprived affected
drivers of the benefit of their bargain and exposed them to a
dangerous safety issue in the process.
"The Class Vehicles thus differ materially from the product Nissan
intended to sell," the complaint contends, noting that radiator
cooling fan repairs can cost in excess of $1,000.
To date, the suit says, Nissan, despite issuing to dealers at least
one technical service bulletin about the defect in 2017, has
neither recalled affected Pathfinder and QX60 models nor offered
drivers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge. The
automaker has also failed to reimburse proposed class members for
the costs they've incurred in relation to diagnosing and repairing
the cooling fan defect, the filing adds.
"Although Defendants were aware of the widespread nature of the
Cooling Fan Defect in the Class Vehicles, and the grave safety risk
posed by it, Defendants took no steps to notify customers of the
Cooling Fan Defect or to provide them with any relief," the lawsuit
reiterates.
The filing additionally alleges Nissan regularly denies the
existence of the radiator cooling fan issue until after a driver's
three-year/36,000-mile new vehicle warranty coverage has expired,
or otherwise has required drivers to pay out of pocket to fix the
problem even if their vehicle is still under warranty.
The case looks to cover all persons or entities who bought or
leased a 2013-2017 Nissan Pathfinder or 2014-2017 Infiniti QX60 in
the United States. [GN]
NORTHERN DYNASTY: High Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group reports that a settlement has been reached in a class
action against Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty"),
Ronald W. Thiessen, Thomas C. Collier, Cantor Fitzgerald Canada
Corporation, Canaccord Genuity Corp., BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.,
Paradigm Capital Inc., TD Securities Inc., and Velocity Trade
Capital. The class action alleges that there were
misrepresentations in certain of Northern Dynasty's public
disclosures and in documents provided to investors.
The settlement provides for payments by the defendants in the class
action and their insurers of the total amount of USD$2,125,000 to
resolve those claims. This settlement is not an admission of
liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of the defendants, all
of whom have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations against
them.
The settlement has been approved by the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. [GN]
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Shareholder Suit in California Court Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that it is currently
facing a putative securities class action lawsuit
(4:18-cv-07669-HSG) initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and titled "In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation." An amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2020. The
amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA
executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false or misleading statements related to
channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on
graphics processing unit demand between May 10, 2017 and November
14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who
they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.
On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in
favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs
filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604.
On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel
affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis
that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. On
November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA's petition for
rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel's majority decision to
reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA had filed
on October 10, 2023. On November 21, 2023, NVIDIA filed a motion
with the Ninth Circuit for a stay of the mandate pending NVIDIA's
petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court's resolution of the matter. On
December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA's motion to stay
the mandate. NVIDIA's deadline to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari is March 4, 2024.
NVIDIA is a full-stack computing company with data-center-scale
offerings for "compute & networking" and graphics.
PACIFIC HOODS: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Hoods, Inc.
The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pacific Hoods, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01374 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pacific Hoods -- https://pacifichoods.com/ -- has been proud to be
the exclusive East Coast distributor of premier Taiwanese brand
Pacific range hoods in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
PACIFIC PARTNERS: Abron Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA ABRON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC
PARTNERS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, HCA
HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.24CV432274 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., March 1, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the California Labor Code.
Plaintiff Abron was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee in California. Throughout her employment with the
Defendants, she was allegedly forced to continue working through
her meal and rest breaks in order to assist Defendant's needs.
Because of this, she was unable to take her required meal and rest
breaks. Moreover, Defendants failed to pay premium wages of one
hour's pay for each missed meal and rest break to her, says the
Plaintiff.
Pacific Partners Management Services, Inc. is a California
corporation that provides health care management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
Nidah Farishta, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123,
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
Nidah@OLFLA.com
PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Continued to May 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SRAEL BERBER,
individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant
to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. PACIFIC STEEL
GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for administrative relief seeking further
revisions to the Court's scheduling order pursuant to l.r. 7-11(as
Modified):
-- The Plaintiffs' April 19, 2024 deadline to file their motion
for
class certification ("MCC") is continued to Monday, May 20,
2024.
-- The Defendant's June 7, 2024 deadline to file its opposition
to
Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, July 8, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' July 12, 2024 deadline to file their reply to
Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to
Monday, August 11, 2024.
-- The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, September 12, 2024
at
2:00 p.m.
Pacific Steel is an independent reinforcing steel fabricator and
placer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kEU8Bm at no extra
charge.[CC]
PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gay Continued to May 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GAY, individually,
and on behalf of the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL
BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
similarly situated; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
administrative relief seeking further revisions to the Court's
scheduling order pursuant to l.r. 7-11(as
Modified):
-- The Plaintiffs' April 19, 2024 deadline to file their motion
for
class certification ("MCC") is continued to Monday, May 20,
2024.
-- The Defendant's June 7, 2024 deadline to file its opposition
to
Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, July 8, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' July 12, 2024 deadline to file their reply to
Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to
Monday, August 11, 2024.
-- The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, September 12, 2024
at
2:00 p.m.
Pacific Steel is an independent reinforcing steel fabricator and
placer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RUsNLE at no extra
charge.[CC]
PARODI HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parodi Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Parodi Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01396 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Parodi Holdings, LLC doing business as Avanti Cigar Co. --
https://www.avanticigar.com/ -- is a producer of all-tobacco cigars
in the United States, all natural, 100% Kentucky tobacco from
Tennessee and Kentucky - the only cigars dry cured in the United
States of America.[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
PEARSON EDUCATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Collins Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COLLINS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. PEARSON EDUCATION,
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02219-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul
Engelmayer entered an order denying Pearson's motion to strike,
without prejudice to Pearson's right to pursue the same or similar
such relief later in this litigation.
The Court denies Pearson's motions to dismiss and to strike. The
Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions pending at Dockets 10 and 16.
The Plaintiff John Collins brings this putative class action
against Pearson alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection
Act ("VPPA"). Collins alleges that Pearson knowingly discloses to
Meta-- the parent company of the popular social media service
Facebook -- data containing Collins' and other subscribers'
personally identifiable information ("PII") without their consent.
Pearson is an education media company that publishes and sells a
wide variety of print and digital products.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 1, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AVCuaq
at no extra charge.[CC]
PELICIA HALL: Seeks to Remove Exhibit 34 from Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al.,
V. PELICIA E. HALL, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00021-SA-JMV (N.D.
Miss.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order removing
from the public docket the previously filed Exhibit 34 to the
Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and replace the same with the corrected version of Exhibit 34.
The Defendants file this unopposed motion to replace on the public
docket Exhibit 34 to the Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, with a revised version of Exhibit 34 that
redacts additional identifying information of one of the
Plaintiffs.
On Feb. 21, 2024, the Defendants filed their response to Plaintiff'
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs previously raised concerns that disclosing the
identities of the Plaintiffs and their allegations created safety
risks, and Defendants agreed to redact from public filings the
Plaintiffs' names and replace those names with pseudonym identifies
to address the Plaintiffs' concerns.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yQr3gi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Claire Barker, Esq.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 220
Jackson, MS 39205-0220
Telephone: (601) 359-3523
E-mail: Claire.Barker@ago.ms.gov
- and -
Karen E. Howell, Esq.
William Trey Jones, III, Esq.
Cody C. Bailey, Esq.
L. Kyle Williams, Esq.
Jacob A. Bradley, Esq.
J. Breland Parker, Esq.
BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC
E-mail: tjones@brunini.com
khowell@brunini.com
cbailey@brunini.com
kyle.williams@brunini.com
jbradley@brunini.com
bparker@brunini.com
The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100
190 East Capitol Street (39201)
Post Office Drawer 119
Jackson, MS 39205
Telephone: (601) 948-3101
Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
PERDOCEO EDUCATION: Court OK's Settlement Deal in Sweet Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Perdoceo Education Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on
November 16, 2022, a California federal court in "Sweet v.
Cardona," No. 3:19-cv-3674 (N.D. Cal.) approved a settlement
agreement entered into by the U.S. Department of Education in a
class action lawsuit that challenges the way the it has been
dealing with borrower defense to repayment (BDR) applications over
the past few years.
The settlement provides a streamlined path to debt forgiveness for
former students of over 150 schools, including those owned by
Perdoceo. Neither the company nor its current or former
institutions are a party to this lawsuit. BDR applications for over
150 schools pending at the time of the settlement agreement were
approximately 286,000, but expanded by an addition 180,000
applications prior to the court's final approval following
publicity about the opportunity afforded by the settlement. The
Department of Education1 has neither identified the number of
claims nor the specific claims covered by the settlement that are
related to our institutions.
Perdoceo owns academic institutions that offer postsecondary
education primarily online to a diverse student population, along
with campus-based and blended learning programs. Colorado Technical
University and the American InterContinental University System
provide degree programs from the associate through doctoral level
as well as non-degree seeking and professional development
programs.
RESTAURANT LIFE: Fails to Pay Workers Proper Wages, Surgento Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARYELLEN SURGENTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT LIFE LLC d/b/a GALUPPI'S
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60306 (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2024) is
a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Florida Minimum
Wage Act, and Art. X, Sec. 24 of the Florida Constitution on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other restaurant servers and bartenders
who work or have worked at the Galuppi's restaurant during the
applicable statute of limitations.
According to the complaint, the Defendant committed state and
federal minimum wage violations because it: (1) compensated
restaurant servers and bartenders at a reduced sub-minimum wage for
tipped employees, but failed to provide Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated with statutory notice of taking a tip credit;
(2) unlawfully retained Plaintiff's and similarly situated servers
and bartenders tips to cover costs associated with walk-outs or
"dine-and-dash" customers; (3) allowed supervisors and managers to
take and retain portions of servers' and bartenders' tips for
Defendant's benefit; (4) required Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated to perform non-tipped side duties and side work
that exceeded 20% of all work performed in at least one workweek;
and (5) required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to
perform non-tipped duties and side work in excess of 30 continuous
minutes in one or more shifts. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly
situated servers and bartenders have been denied wages under state
and federal law during various workweeks within the relevant time
period, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a restaurant server and
bartender at Galuppi's restaurant from October 2022 through January
2023, and again from April 2023 through May 20, 2023.
Restaurant Life LLC owns and operates the Galuppi's restaurant
located in Pompano Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
- and -
Andrew Obeidy, Esq.
OBEIDY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
2755 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Suite 225
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
Telephone: (305) 892-5454
Facsimile: (954) 206-6955
E-mail: andrew@obdlegal.com
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Bush False Ad Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rust-Oleum Corporation filed an appeal from the District Court's
Amended Order dated February 5, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
ANTHONY BUSH, Plaintiff v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-03268-LB, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.
The suit seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendant's unlawful
labeling and marketing of its Krud Kutter home cleaning products.
The Plaintiff contends that Krud Kutter "Non-Toxic," "Earth
Friendly" formula is toxic to humans, animals, and the environment.
The Defendant exposes consumers to harmful ingredients hidden in
its Krud Kutter products by fraudulently advertising them as
non-toxic. The products are, in fact, toxic because they contain
ingredients that have been linked to lung irritation, skin
irritation, sneezing, sore throat, runny nose, shortness of breath,
and severe burns of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes, the
Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds that some of the ingredients
are possible human carcinogens.
On September 28, 2022, the Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an
order:
1. certifying a California Subclass of:
"All residents of California who, within four years prior
to the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Products;"
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns,
successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities
in which Defendant has controlling interests; (iii)
federal, state, and/or local governments, including, but
not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions,
bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or
subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial officer presiding over
this matter and person within the third degree of
consanguinity to such judicial officer;
2. appointing him as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Ryan J. Clarkson, Katherine A. Bruce, and
Kelsey J. Elling of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., and
Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
On September 23, 2023, the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an
Order that the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's
motion to exclude Dr. Kivetz, and Defendant's motion to exclude Dr.
Dennis is stricken and reset from October 12, 2023 to November 9,
2023.
On February 5, 2024, an Amended Order was entered by Magistrate
Judge Laurel Beeler granting the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3). The Court also appointed Anthony Bush as the class
representative and appointed his counsel (Ryan J. Clarkson,
Katherine A. Bruce, and Kelsey J. Elling of the Clarkson Law Firm
and Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC) as class
counsel.
The appellate case is captioned as Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corporation,
Case No. 24-913, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on February 21, 2024.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION is represented by:
Karen Margaret Sullivan, Esq.
MANNING GROSS MASSENBURG LLP
400 Spectrum Center Dr, Ste 1450
Irvine, CA 92618-5027
Telephone: (949) 892-4700
E-mail: ksullivan@mgmlaw.com
- and -
Paul Stephen Fardy, Esq.
Anthony Joseph Monaco, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN BELL LLP
330 N. Wabash, Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60611-3604
Telephone: (312) 321-9100
E-mail: sfardy@smbtrials.com
amonaco@smbtrials.com
Plaintiff-Respondent ANTHONY BUSH is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
Celine Cohan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Fax: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 915-9432
Fax: (650) 618-0478
Email: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nance Extended to Oct. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFENY NANCE, on behalf
of herself and the Class Members, v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00477-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Troy Nunley entered an order granting stipulation to stay
discovery for 30 days:
1. All current and pending discovery in this case is stayed for
30 days.
2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
certification is extended by 30 days, to Oct. 7, 2024.
On March 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her class-action complaint
for damages against Ryder in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California, captioned Tiffeny Nance v.
Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00477.
on Oct. 24, 2023, Ryder and the parties in the Perkins and Johnson
actions participated in a successful mediation and agreed to a
settlement in principle that, by definition, Ryder states
encompasses the putative class and claims alleged in Plaintiff's
Class Action.
The Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification by 30 days,
making the current deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion Sept.
6, 2024.
Ryder provides transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NY37xg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Eugene Zinovyev, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq.
Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
mcurtis@reedsmith.com
thendershot@reedsmith.com
SAGE HOME LOANS: Burnelle Files Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sage Home Loans
Corporation. The case is styled as Patricia Burnelle, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Sage Home Loans
Corporation formerly known as: Lenox Financial Mortgage Corporation
doing business as: Weslend Financial, Case No. 0:24-cv-00972-MGL
(D.S.C., Feb. 26, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Sage Home Loans Corporation -- https://www.sagehomeloans.com/ --
functions as a financial firm. The Company specializes in providing
customers with home loans for single,multi-family, townhome, and
condominium properties among others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
SAHADI'S LLC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sahadi's, LLC. The
case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Maru Sports, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01369-JMW
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sahadi's, LLC -- https://sahadis.com/ -- is in the business of
Retail Groceries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
SCHMIDT ADVISORY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new
class action lawsuit is demanding Hollywood movie financier Jason
Cloth and an accused Chicago area intermediary pay more than $180
million to repay investors who accuse him of operating a Ponzi
scheme that have allegedly allowed Cloth to grab film credits and
continue a "lavish lifestyle," while leaving investors, including
many from the Chicago area, holding the bag.
On March 5, attorneys Alexander Loftus and Ross Good, of the firm
of Loftus & Eisenberg, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against Cloth and his accused local "middlemen"
affiliated with a financial advisory firm, identified as Schmidt
Advisory Services, which does business as Catalyst Wealth
Management.
The lawsuit centers on the successful efforts by Cloth and his
associates to raise tens of millions of dollars from 2019-2023 on
behalf of several Cloth-affiliated ventures. According to the
complaint, these included entities known as BRON Studios, Creative
Wealth Media Finance Corp. and C2 Motion Picture Group.
According to the complaint, the various business entities were all
part of an alleged Ponzi scheme by Cloth and his affiliates,
allowing them allegedly to shift funds from one to the other.
According to the complaint, they follow a "business model" set by a
Canadian entity known as Crystal Wealth, which was operated by a
man identified as Clayton Smith and in which Cloth was allegedly
involved.
According to the complaint, Crystal Wealth was shut down under an
investigatory action launched by Canadian financial regulators,
ultimately leaving Crystal Wealth's auditor to settle with
investors for tens of millions of dollars.
In the meantime, the lawsuit asserts BRON Studios and Cloth's new
company, Creative Wealth, had produced other U.S. films, notably
including the successful supervillain origin story, "Joker."
However, in 2022, those ventures allegedly were beginning to
default, and Cloth at that time launched a new venture, C2, which
"picked up where Creative Wealth left off but apparently with new
investors."
According to the complaint, over the next four years, Cloth's
ventures collectively raised millions more for other film projects.
According to the complaint, this was allegedly accomplished through
two intermediaries, the Schmidt group in the Chicago area and
another group in Texas, identified as Maraboyina Capital.
According to the complaint, Schmidt allegedly was paid through
"carried interest" from investments placed in Creative Wealth
through them.
According to the complaint, investors were allegedly promised
payment through based on the success of the films in which they
were investing, but were allegedly either never paid or paid based
on the desires of Cloth to "keep an investor engaged."
According to the complaint, it allegedly did not matter if the film
projects were actually successful or not.
The complaint noted the pattern could be seen in investor payments
- and non-payments - in films co-produced by Cloth affiliated
entities, including "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" and the Netflix
movie, "Monkey Man."
Both films proved profitable, but according to the complaint, Cloth
allegedly only repaid certain investors, and then at times only to
allow them to reinvest in other film projects.
In the meantime, the complaint asserts Cloth would use Schmidt and
Maraboyina to essentially string investors along, promising them
payment that usually never materialized.
According to the complaint, Schmidt and Maraboyina never actually
confirmed any of the messages they passed along to investors were
accurate or factual.
"Cloth's scheme was a house of cards and an iota of due diligence
by the middleman ... would have demonstrated this investment was
not safe for anyone," the complaint said.
According to the complaint, both BRON Studios and CMWF have since
entered bankruptcy.
According to the complaint, CMWF has claimed $80 million in total
liabilities, including an estimated $34 million allegedly owed to
investors in Illinois.
According to the complaint, Cloth and C2 invested more than $100
million in four Paramount movies released in 2022 and 2023,
including "Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning;" "Transformers:
Rise of the Beasts;" "Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves;"
and "Babylon."
The complaint was filed by named plaintiff Diane Fowler, of
Oklahoma, who allegedly invested $1 million in CWMF, allegedly as
part of a $20 million loan, under which Fowler allegedly was
promised a return of 12% interest, paid monthly.
She allegedly never received payment.
The lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include a class of
additional plaintiffs to include everyone who invested in Cloth's
ventures from 2020-2023.
The lawsuit accuses Cloth of fraudulent misrepresentation and
violations of Illinois state securities law, and accuses the
Schmidt defendants of negligent misrepresentation. It accuses all
defendants of unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages of at least $80 million,
plus punitive damages of at least $100 million, plus attorney fees.
[GN]
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Davis Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY P. DAVIS, v.
SELECTQUOTE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00185-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David C. Keesler
entered an order granting the "Second Joint Motion To Extend
Deadlines
In Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan."
The scheduling order deadlines are revised as follows:
-- Discovery completion: April 29, 2024
-- Expert reports
Plaintiff: May 28, 2024
Defendant: July 1, 2024
-- Class certification motion: Aug. 27, 2024
-- Defendant's response to class Sept. 30, 2024
certification motion:
-- The Plaintiff's reply to class Oct. 14, 2024
certification motion:
SelectQuote is an insurance company that offers auto and home
insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fHqWi0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SNOWFLAKE INC: Flannery Sues Over Nearly 30% Drop of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE L. FLANNERY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE INC., FRANK SLOOTMAN,
and MICHAEL P. SCARPELLI, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01234-PCP
(N.D. Cal., February 29, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Snowflake's business, financial
results, and prospects in order to trade Snowflake Class A common
stock at artificially inflated prices between September 16, 2020,
and March 2, 2022. Specifically, Snowflake's purported growth had
been built on unsustainable and deceptive business tactics as
Snowflake's salesforce had knowingly and systematically oversold
consumption credits to clients.
When the truth emerged, the price of Snowflake Class A common stock
dropped precipitously from $264.69 per share when the market closed
on March 2, 2022, to $224.02 per share when the market closed on
March 3, 2022, a 15 percent decline, on abnormally heavy volume of
over 33 million shares traded. The stock price continued to decline
another nearly 15 percent over the next few trading days, closing
at just $191.61 on March 8, 2022.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of Snowflake
Class A common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant economic losses and damages, says the suit.
Snowflake Inc. is a data cloud platform company doing business in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
- and -
Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
SOUTHEAST UTILITIES: Chapman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Linemen
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID O. CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEAST UTILITIES OF GEORGIA
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00222 (M.D. Fla., February 29,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse employee
and a fiber optic lineman from approximately June 15, 2021, until
November 06, 2023.
Southeast Utilities of Georgia LLC is a commercial and residential
contractor, with its principal place of business in Jacksonville,
Duval County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SPI LIGHTING: Stumpf Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Stumpf, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SPI LIGHTING HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00258 (E.D.
Wis., Feb. 27, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, (“FLSA”), and Wisconsin’s
Wage Payment and Collection Laws (“WWPCL”) for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by:
shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff’s
and all other hourly paid, non-exempt employees’ weekly
timesheets for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or work
performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of
Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to
include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as
monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and
payments, in said employees’ regular rates of pay for overtime
calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-
exempt employee in the position of Fabrication Lead.
The Defendant is an architectural lighting manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
STAPLES CONTRACT: Alcaraz Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Flavio Alcaraz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL,
LLC; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24CV000724 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb.
23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00565-WBS-JDP.
The Complaint contains ten causes of action against Defendant
alleging: violation of California's unfair competition law, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked, civil penalties pursuant to the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for failure to make proper
disclosures, violation of the FCRA for failure to obtain proper
authorization; violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act (ICRAA) for failure to make proper disclosures;
violation of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) for
failure to obtain proper disclosures.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tritia M. Murata, Esq.
Maya Harel, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
Phone: 213.892.5200
Facsimile: 213.892.5454
Email: TMurata@mofo.com
MHarel@mofo.com
STATE FARM: 4th Circuit Says Virus Class Suit Should Be Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dilworth, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said a 2022 ruling finding
COVID-19 does not cause physical damage could be used to dismiss a
class action against State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. over the
denial of business loss claims from the pandemic.
A majority of the three-judge panel said in Elegant Massage LLC v.
State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. et al. that the court could
exercise "pendent jurisdiction" to apply the ruling in Uncork &
Create LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. because State Farm's motion
to dismiss was previously denied.
Virginia Beach, Virginia-based Elegant Massage, which owns and
operates Light Stream Spa, filed a class action in federal court in
Virginia against State Farm after its claim for losses it incurred
after closing in March 2020 was denied. State Farm attempted to
have the case dismissed because the business closed before any
government closure orders were in place and because there was no
physical loss or damage. State Farm also argued that a virus
exclusion applied to bar coverage, court records show.
The trial judge denied the motion, finding that under Virginia law
the phrase "direct physical loss" is ambiguous and that no
exclusion was applicable. The judge also rejected State Farm's bid
for an appeal.
Elegant Massage then filed a motion for class certification, which
was granted. State Farm appealed.
The majority said that even though the Uncork ruling dealt with
West Virginia law, the decision established that neither government
closure orders nor COVID-19 caused covered physical loss or
damage.
U.S. Circuit Court Chief Judge James Andrew Wynn concurred with the
decision but found the same conclusion could have been reached by
only addressing the class certification ruling. He wrote that the
certification should be reversed because State Farm's denial of
business loss claims involved a number of individual issues.
Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for
comment.[GN]
STEEL STANDING: Underpays Construction Workers, Brizuela Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. BRIZUELA, MIGUEL A. MAYORGA, and JIMMY LOZANO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEEL
STANDING LLC, RIVIERA ROOFING, LLC, MICHAEL J. LADOUCEUR, and
FRANCIS J. GAETANI, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00190 (M.D. Fla.,
February 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for
retaliatory discharge.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as full-time
construction employees between February and December 2023.
Steel Standing LLC is a construction contractor, with its place of
business in Santa Rosa County, Florida.
Riviera Roofing, LLC is a construction contractor, with its place
of business in Santa Rosa County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Conditional Status Bid Terminated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIEL BERNARD, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STRATEGIC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07396-CPO-MJS
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'hearn entered an order
administratively terminating the Plaintiffs' Motion for conditional
class certification.
The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs shall file a
brief no later than March 14, 2024—not to exceed ten
pages—solely addressing the issues of:
(1) subject matter jurisdiction, specifically, the effect that
the
Zambrano case has, if any, on this case given the class
requested to be certified by the Plaintiffs in their Motion;
(2) whether the New Jersey and/or New York Plaintiffs are
suitable
class representatives; and
(3) why the Court should not stay, dismiss, or transfer this
case
to an appropriate jurisdiction in light of the exclusion of
any
New Jersey citizens or employees from the class requested to
be
certified by the Plaintiffs in their Motion.
On Dec. 19, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this suit, and on June 23,
2023, filed a Second Amended Complaint on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and related New Jersey, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York state law claims.
The Plaintiff Bernard worked performing courier services in New
Jersey for SDS from July 2018 to December 2021.
Strategic operates a same-day delivery service of medical
prescriptions and other pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lqDVpM at no extra
charge.[CC]
SWIFT PORK: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Vail
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS VAIL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT PORK
COMPANY, d/b/a JBS USA Case No. 3:22-cv-00354-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Regina S. Edwards entered a stipulated revised
scheduling order
Order:
Action or Event Previous Updated
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiff's deadline for March 1, 2024 Apr. 1, 2024
disclosing expert(s),
providing all required expert
disclosures, and producing
expert report(s).
Defendant's deadline for May 3, 2024 June 3, 2024
disclosing expert(s), providing
all required expert disclosures,
and producing expert report(s).
Deadline for the Parties to On or before On or before
attend private or judicial May 15, 2024 June 14,
2024
mediation
Deadline for completing all June 7, 2024 July 8,
2024
discovery on class certification
issues.
Plaintiff's deadline to move July 8, 2024 Aug. 9,
2024
for class certification.
Defendant's deadline to file Aug. 30, 2024 Sept. 30,
2024
opposition to motion for class
certification.
Plaintiff's deadline to file Sept. 27, 2024 Oct. 25,
2024
reply to Defendant's opposition
to class certification.
Swift Pork produces and processes meat products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wsDZIr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
D. Reed Solt, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
lsheets@lsccounsel.com
rsolt@lsccounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
H. Max Kelln, Esq.
Benjamin Broadhead, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 237-0300
Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
E-mail: h.max.kelln@faegredrinker.com
ben.broadhaed@faegredrinker.com
SYNDICATED BAR & THEATER: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syndicated Bar &
Theater, LLC. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Syndicated Bar & Theater, LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01372-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Syndicated BK -- https://syndicatedbk.com/ -- is a movie theater,
bar, and restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
T.Y.P. RESTAURANT: Jordan Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRELL JORDAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. T.Y.P. RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. d/b/a TENDER
GREENS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01617 (S.D.N.Y., March 1,
2024), seeks to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made
to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed at
any time by Defendant T.Y.P. Restaurant Group, Inc. between July
17, 2017 and the present in the State of New York, in violation of
the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Jordan was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
employee between 2018 and 2019 at its Defendant's Flatiron
location. Despite being qualified as a manual worker under NYLL,
Plaintiff was allegedly compensated every other week, rather than
weekly, by Defendant throughout the entirety of his employment.
Headquartered in California, T.Y.P. Restaurant Group, Inc. provides
restaurant service throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
TCOM LP: Parties Seek to Conditionally Certify Collective
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LITTARES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TCOM, L.P., Case No. 2:23-cv-00060-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Parties
request that the Court grant their joint motion to conditionally
certify a Collective and approve Notice to the Putative Class
Members.
1. The Parties have stipulated that the appropriate collective
of
employees consists of all individuals employed by TCOM in the
position of Field Service Representative in TCOM's Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia ("KSA") program for the period commencing three
years before the date on which the Court approves this
Stipulation.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 to the memorandum in support
hereof, is the Parties' Joint Stipulation identifying the
agreed
upon collective and setting forth the Parties’ agreements
concerning the collective.
3. Attached as Exhibit 2 to the memorandum in support hereof is
proposed notice to potential plaintiffs for the Court’s
approval. Attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 to the memorandum in
support hereof are a proposed e-mail notification to the
collective and a proposed text message reminder to the
collective.
TCOM offers airborne persistent surveillance solutions.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gXY5lm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5279
E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
James R. Harrell, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (800) 288-1529
E-mail: BLKinsley@crumleyroberts.com
JRHarrell@crlegalteam.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles R. Bacharach, Esq.
Jerrold A. Thrope, Esq.
GORDON FEINBLATT, LLC
1001 Fleet Street, Suite 700
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 576-4295
Facsimile: (410) 576-4295
E-mail: cbacharach@gfrlaw.com
jthrope@gfrlaw.com
- and -
Phillip Hornthal, III, Esq.
HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS &
MAYLAND, LLP
301 E. Main Street
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Telephone: (252) 335-0871
E-mail: pharnthal@hrem.com
TERRY FLEMING: Court Narrows Claims in Craig Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY CRAIG, et al., v.
TERRY FLEMING, et al. Case No. 4:22-cv-00870-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part and denying in part
Fleming's motion to dismiss:
-- Both the Plaintiffs' TVPRA claims and Cathcart's second-degree
sexual assault and AHTA claims against Fleming can proceed.
-- Cathcart's claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process,
first-degree sexual assault, outrage, and civil conspiracy are
dismissed with prejudice.
-- The motions to dismiss of PerfectVision and Bella Casa are
granted, and all claims against PerfectVision Manufacturing,
Inc.,
d/b/a PV10 Wireless, Perfect 10 Antenna Company, Perfect 10
Satellite Distributing, Perfect 10 Satellite Distributing Co.,
Perfect 10 Wireless, PerfectVision, and PerfectVision
Manufacturing; and Bella Casa, LLC are dismissed with
prejudice.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to certify and motion for partial
summary
judgment are denied.
The Plaintiffs Brittany Craig and Kaylee Cathcart bring this
putative class action alleging that Terry Fleming, along with his
companies PerfectVision and Bella Casa, coerced them to engage in
commercial sex acts over several years.
Craig alleges that she met Fleming in 2012 when she was nineteen.
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). She flew with him to Key West in
September 2012 and, on the flight, Fleming gave her alcohol.
Craig went with Fleming to his house, where she drank until she
blacked out. She alleges that she woke up to learn that she and
Fleming had sex, but she was too drunk to remember it.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t6Dwls at no extra
charge.[CC]
TESLA INC: Driver Loses Bid in Battery Class Action to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that Tesla
owners who accused it of falsely advertising estimated driving
ranges for its electric vehicles must pursue their claims in
individual arbitrations rather than banding together in proposed
class action lawsuits, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California
said the drivers had agreed to an arbitration provision for
resolving disputes with the automaker when they bought their
vehicles.
The plaintiffs accused Tesla of fraudulently inducing consumers to
buy its cars by overstating how far they can travel on a single
charge. The pair of lawsuits also alleged that Tesla, led by
billionaire CEO Elon Musk, misrepresented the driving range on
vehicle dashboards.
A Reuters special report in July revealed that Tesla had created a
secret team to suppress drivers' complaints about driving range.
Both lawsuits cited the special report.
Tesla and lawyers for the company did not immediately respond to
requests for comment. Tesla has called the claims in the lawsuits
"unmeritorious."
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the two cases either declined to
comment or did not immediately respond to a request for one.
Rogers' order did not address the merits of the drivers' claims.
She did not dismiss the lawsuits and said she could eventually
issue an injunction against Tesla if the drivers successfully
arbitrated their claims under California's unfair competition law
and other provisions.
The drivers' attorneys had called Tesla's effort to compel
individual arbitration an "effort to avoid classwide liability for
its deceptive conduct."
Tesla lowered driving-range estimates across its EVs in January, as
a new U.S. government vehicle-testing regulation was implemented to
ensure automakers accurately reflect real-world performance. [GN]
THEO CHOCOLATE: Chesavage & Davis Actions Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA CHESAVAGE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THEO
CHOCOLATE, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-02739-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order that:
1. The Chesavage and Davis actions currently pending in the
Northern
District of California and any other action arising out of the
same or similar operative facts now pending or hereafter filed
in, removed to, or transferred to this District shall be
consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) before the
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
2. All papers filed in the Consolidated Action shall be filed
under
Case No. 4:23-cv02739-HSG and shall bear the following
caption:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gZtZyH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
DGeorge@4-Justice.com
BBrown@4-justice.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq.
Shashi Gowda, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
csmith@gustafsongluek.com
sgowda@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
kae@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, LLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON AND MILLEN, LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian M. Ledger, Esq.
Ryan Landis, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 696-6700
Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
E-mail: bledger@grsm.com
rlandis@grsm.com
TKO GROUP: Continues to Defend Le Class Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------
TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Le class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Zuffa has five related class-action lawsuits filed against it
between December 2014 and March 2015 by a total of eleven former
UFC fighters.
The lawsuits, which are substantially identical, were transferred
to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and
consolidated into a single action in June 2015, captioned Le et al.
v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-1045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Le" case).
The lawsuit alleges that Zuffa violated Section 2 of the Sherman
Act by monopsonizing an alleged market for the services of elite
professional MMA athletes.
The fighter plaintiffs claim that Zuffa's alleged conduct injured
them by artificially depressing the compensation they received for
their services, and they seek treble damages under the antitrust
laws, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and, in some instances,
injunctive relief.
On August 9, 2023, the district court certified the lawsuit as a
damages class action, encompassing the period from December 16,
2010 to June 30, 2017.
On January 18, 2024, the court denied Zuffa's motion for summary
judgment and requests to exclude the fighter plaintiffs' experts.
The court has set a trial date of April 15, 2024.
The fighter plaintiffs in the Le case abandoned their claim for
injunctive relief, so the only relief the fighter plaintiffs may
seek at the April 15, 2024 trial is damages.
On June 24, 2021, another lawsuit, Johnson et al. v. Zuffa, LLC et
al., No. 2:21-cv-1189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Johnson" case), was
filed by a putative class of former UFC fighters and covering the
period from July 1, 2017 to the present and alleges substantially
similar claims to the Le case and seeks injunctive relief.
The defendants in the Johnson case are Zuffa, Endeavor, and TKO
OpCo.
Discovery recently opened and will continue at least through
mid-2025.
The Company believes that the claims alleged lack merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously against them.
TKO Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides sports entertainment
services, as well as focuses on organizing live events. TKO Group
Holdings serves customers worldwide. [BN]
TKO GROUP: Continues to Defend WWE Class Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the WWE class suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On November 17, 2023, a purported former stockholder of WWE,
Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio,
filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of itself and
similarly situated former WWE stockholders in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, captioned Laborers District Council and
Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio v. McMahon, C.A. No.
2023-1166-JTL ("Laborers Action").
On November 20, 2023, another purported WWE stockholder, Dennis
Palkon, filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of
himself and similarly situated former WWE stockholders in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Palkon v. McMahon,
C.A. No. 2023-1175-JTL ("Palkon Action"). The Laborers and Palkon
Actions allege breach of fiduciary duty claims against former WWE
directors Vincent K. McMahon, Nick Khan, Paul Levesque, George A.
Barrios, Steve Koonin, Michelle D. Wilson, and Frank A. Riddick
III, arising out of the Transactions.
These cases are pending consolidation and are in the early stages.
TKO Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides sports entertainment
services, as well as focuses on organizing live events. TKO Group
Holdings serves customers worldwide. [BN]
TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Exhibits
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS,
III, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-GEKP (E.D. Pa.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing of the
Exhibits C, D, E (including the two exhibits thereto), and F to
Michael O'Neil's Declaration in support of Trans Union's Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and portions of Trans
Union's
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification that
contain or reflect Confidential Information.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from allegations that Trans Union, a
consumer reporting agency, violated Section 1681e(b) of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bZW9z0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael O'Neil, Esq.
Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
Kristen DeGrande, Esq.
Joshua M. Peles, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-207-1000
E-mail: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com
ahartmann@reedsmith.com
kdegrande@reedsmith.com
jpeles@reedsmith.com
TREMSON RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS CANO GONZALEZ; and JULIO ROSAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TREMSON RECYCLING LLC;
THE TREMSON CORPORATION; TREMSON WOOD PRODUCTS LLC; DENISE
TREMBLAY; MARJOLAINE TREMBLAY; GEORGE TREMBLAY JR.; and JOHN
TREMBLAY, Defendants, Case 7:24-cv-01612 (S.D.N.Y., March 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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as machine
operators.
TREMSON RECYCLING LLC is a land clearing, tree removal and grubbing
company, in Brewster, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Trinidad-Lira, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Email: jtrinidadlira@katzmelinger.com
TWO JINN: Mejia Submits Support to Class Cert Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA MEDINA and ALICIA
MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Two Jinn, Inc., a California corporation, d/b/a
ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, and ADLER WALLACH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
California corporation, d/b/a AWA COLLECTIONS, Case No.
3:22-cv-02540-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Beatriz Mejia submits to the Court
declaration in support of Two Jinn's Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class.
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion asserts that "Two Jinn and AWA have
refused
to provide complete productions of data and records that
Plaintiffs would need to provide the total number of Class
Members
for all proposed Classes."
-- On Oct. 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs and Two Jinn held a meet and
confer to discuss various discovery topics, during which
Plaintiffs made a specific request regarding the production of
data for absent putative class members in connection with
Plaintiffs' First Request for Production to Two Jinn.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BJSa8N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
K.C. Jaski, Esq.
Katelyn L. Kang, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldana, Esq.
Nachi A. Baru, Esq.
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693 2000
Facsimile: (415) 693 2222
E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com
kjaski@cooley.com
kkang@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
nbaru@cooley.com
TWO JINN: Seeks to Seal Tailored Portions of Class Cert Opposition
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA MEDINA and ALICIA
MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Two Jinn, Inc., a California corporation, d/b/a
ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, and ADLER WALLACH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
California corporation, d/b/a AWA COLLECTIONS, Case No.
3:22-cv-02540-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order sealing the designated and narrowly tailored
portions of Defendant Two Jinn's Opposition, Exhibits 1, 6-7, 9-10,
12, 19, and 30-32 to the Mejia Declaration, and portions of the
Edwards Declaration.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QEjYu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
K.C. Jaski, Esq.
Katelyn L. Kang, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldana, Esq.
Nachi A. Baru, Esq.
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693 2000
Facsimile: (415) 693 2222
E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com
kjaski@cooley.com
kkang@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
nbaru@cooley.com
U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE: Garcia FLSA Suit Seeks Drivers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE CORPORATION, JAMES
MICHAEL GARFIELD AKA JAMES G. ABDALLETIF, and NIDALIA ABDALLETIF,
Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00435 (M.D. Fla., February 29, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and for retaliatory discharge.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time driver
from approximately February 06, 2023, to February 19, 2023.
U.S. Special Service Corporation is a company that specializes in
transporting prisoners between correctional facilities, located at
401 Sandlewood CV, Winterpark, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
UNIBARNS TRADING: Jones Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO JONES, v. UNIBARNS
TRADING, INC. d/b/a UNICE HAIR, Case No. 1:23-cv-00594-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff requests the Court for a 90-day extension
of the class certification deadline.
Mr. Orlando Jones has filed this putative class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because he received the text
messages from UNice Hair despite being on the Do Not Call List and
asking them to stop the text messages in response to several
solicitations he received.
UNice Hair has responded to discovery and is gathering to produce
records of their text messaging conduct. In order for the Plaintiff
to have that information analyzed and conduct discovery with
respect to the text messages sent, he is requesting a 90-day
extension of the current March 5, 2024 deadline to file a motion
for class certification to June 3, 2024.
Unibarns is a modern logistic company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JD3XxL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Candelaria Seeks Class Cert Pre-Bid Conference
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Candelaria v. Unilever
United States, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06760-NCM-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting pre-motion
conference regarding Ms. Candelaria's anticipated class
certification motion.
Ms. Candelaria and hundreds of other individuals used TRESemme
products containing a dangerous formaldehyde-releasing preservative
called "DMDM" and suffered hair loss as a result. DMDM is a
carcinogen, skin irritant, and allergen proven to cause dermatitis
(skin irritation) and hair loss.
Ms. Candelaria seeks to certify her "Failure to Warn" and "Design
Defect" products liability claims pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
23(b)(3) on behalf of a narrow class consisting of:
"All residents of the United States who suffered hair loss
after
using TRESemme products containing DMDM; who have retained
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as their counsel; and who do not
separately
have a lawsuit against Defendant pending by the date of class
certification."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YN1c4C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
www.sfclasslaw.com
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: (212) 421 6492
Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
UNITED STATES: Parties Seeks to Certify Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIKA OKJE
ERDMANN-BROWNING and JACQUELINE BENITEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary
of the United States Department of Agriculture, in his official
capacity; SHALANDA YOUNG, Director of the United States Office of
Management and Budget, in her official capacity, Case No.
4:23-cv-04678-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting agreed briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs'
motions for preliminary injunction and
class certification and the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
U.S. Department of Agriculture provides leadership on food,
agriculture, natural resources, and related issues.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ovZ6U8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jodie Berger, Esq.
Richard Rothschild, Esq.
Robert Newman, Esq.
Antionette Dozier, Esq.
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY
3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 235-2617
Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
E-mail: jberger@wclp.org
rrothschild@wclp.org
rnewman@wclp.org
adozier@wclp.org
- and -
Lindsay Nako, Esq.
Lori Rifkin, Esq.
Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq.
Meredith Dixon, Esq.
IMPACT FUND
2080 Addison St., Suite 5
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 845-3473
Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
E-mail: lnako@impactfund.org
lrifkin@impactfund.org
fkorr@impactfund.org
mdixon@impactfund.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Rachael Westmoreland, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW Washington, DC 20530
UNIVERSAL IMAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conaway Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CONAWAY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL IMAGING & RADIOLOGY, LLC; and
LINCOLN A. GARAY, MD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20821-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Mar. 1, 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 Conaway was employed by the Defendants as an insurance
verification specialist.
UNIVERSAL IMAGING & RADIOLOGY, LLC provides radiological services.
The Company offers mammography, ultrasound, bone density, MRI, CT
scan, nuclear medicine, and vascular surgery services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
Email: martin@legalopinionusa.com
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Filing Due Sept. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order that the following class
certification-related case schedule and deadlines apply in both
Favell I and Favell II:
Event Deadline
Plaintiffs' Class Expert Report(s): June 7, 2024
Rule 702 Motions: Aug. 1, 2024
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 25, 2024
USC's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Oct. 25, 2024
Class Certification:
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion Nov. 8, 2024
for Class Certification:
Court Hearing and Oral Argument on Nov. 25, 2024
Motion for Class Certification:
University of Southern California is a private research university
in Los Angeles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hwl8ks at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVIDA HALLANDALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Veloz Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ZULEIK VELOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVIDA HALLANDALE MEDICAL CENTER LLC;
HERMANN J. LANGE; and HERMANN A. LANGE, JR., Defendants, Case No.
0:24-cv-60351-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 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 Veloz was employed by the Defendants as a front desk
clerk.
UNIVIDA HALLANDALE MEDICAL CENTER is a Primary Care medical
facility focusing on senior care and preventative medicine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
UPS STORE: Seeks to Denial of McLaren Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA McLAREN, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE UPS STORE,
INC.; RK & SP SERVICES, LLC; and HAMILTON PACK N SHIP LLC, d/b/a
UPS Store, Case No. 3:21-cv-14424-RK-DEA (D.N.J.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order denying motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6bop2w at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel C. Fleming, Esq.
WONG FLEMING, P.C.
821 Alexander Road, Suite 200
Princeton, NJ 08543
Telephone: (609) 951-9520
Facsimile: (609) 951-0270
E-mail: dfleming@wongfleming.com
- and -
Mark R. McDonald, Esq.
Adam J. Hunt, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-5200
E-mail: mmcdonald@mofo.com
adamhunt@mofo.com
US POSTAL: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Donkor
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAA-WILLIE DONKOR, v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00559-JHR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management:
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
The Parties and counsel are cautioned.
1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
by the Court.
2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the
need
for a motion or narrow the issues.
4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with
section
2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
US Postal provides mail processing and delivery services to
individuals and businesses in the U.S.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=45Ud4N at no extra
charge.[CC]
VICTORIA: May Face Class Suit Over Child Sex Abuse in Schools
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers are weighing up launching a class action against the
Victorian government after public school teachers preyed on
students for decades.
Slater and Gordon Lawyers announced it was investigating bringing
compensation claims and a class action against the Victorian
government on behalf of child sex abuse survivors who attended
Beaumaris Primary School and other government schools.
A damning board of inquiry report derided the state's Department of
Education, finding it woefully failed to protect children from the
risk of sexual abuse as it did not have policies to deal with
allegations or convictions.
Slater and Gordon Victorian abuse law practice leader Sam Carroll
described the findings as deeply concerning.
"Most concerning for us, when we read it, is the government put the
reputation of the education system ahead of the safety of school
children," Mr Carroll told AAP.
"That's why the government needs to be held accountable."
Slater and Gordon was considering how to best get survivors
compensation, whether through many individual claims or a class
action.
It was already in touch with some survivors of sex abuse in
Victorian schools and urged others who wanted to pursue claims
dating as far back as the 1960s to contact the firm.
About 120 victims, affected community members and stakeholders told
their stories to the inquiry.
The students were usually boys aged between nine and 12 years when
the abuse started.
Sometimes the abuse happened once or a few times but for others it
was sustained over weeks, months or years.
After the inquiry's report was released, a spokesman for the
Department of Education said it was deeply sorry for the harm
inflicted and committed to victim support and ensuring it wouldn't
happen again.
Arnold Thomas and Becker Lawyers are pursuing claims against about
240 Victorian schools on behalf of almost 400 people who allege
they were victims of abuse at school.
Among the former students, 100 have approached the law firm in the
past six months.
Most attended state schools but some attended independent schools.
Arnold Thomas and Becker abuse practice head Kim Price said a class
action was not in survivors' best interests.
"Given the number of individuals impacted, across hundreds of
schools and in different circumstances over many decades, each case
needs to be assessed on its own facts so that the best outcome can
be achieved for each survivor," he told AAP.
Mr Price has called for a full and proper probe into Victorian
schools' practices and policies for dealing with sexual abuse
allegations.
Slater and Gordon said it had a specialised team ready to listen to
survivors' stories and guide them through the legal process in a
trauma-informed way.
A Victorian government spokesperson said it would continue to
engage with victim-survivors while considering a response to the
board's report.
"We thank the victim-survivors and their families for their
courageous contribution to the Board of Inquiry," they said.
"They shared stories of trauma and abuse that no child should bear,
let alone in a place that should have been their place of safety,
their school."
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 [GN]
VIRGINIA: To Amend Senate Bill 259 to Limit VCPA Statutory Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Waskom, writing for The National Law Review, reports that
Virginia is currently one of just two states, along with
Mississippi, without state-court class actions. But in the most
recent legislative session, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill
259, which would create a class action mechanism in Virginia state
courts. Under Virginia law, Governor Youngkin can sign the bill,
veto it, do nothing (which permits it to become law) -- or he can
propose amendments to the bill, which would then be sent back to
the General Assembly at the "veto session" in April. Governor
Youngkin should veto the bill -- or, in the alternative, he should
propose an amendment to protect Virginia businesses from the threat
of outrageous statutory damages claims under the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act.
Statutory Damages Under the VCPA
Businesses operating in Virginia already face the risk of class
actions in federal courts. Senate Bill 259 incrementally increases
the risk to businesses in Virginia to the extent that it provides
an avenue for class actions that could not be filed in federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act -- e.g., class actions
with an aggregate amount in controversy of less than $5 million or
class actions that only involve Virginia plaintiffs and Virginia
defendants.
However, Senate Bill 259 poses another, even greater risk that is
likely an unintended consequence of the legislation. Senate Bill
259 could result in wider availability of statutory damages under
the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va. Code Ann. Sec. 59.1-196
et seq. ("VCPA"), in amounts that could be ruinous to Virginia
businesses in federal or state court -- i.e., $500 per violation,
including for absent class members. If Governor Youngkin plans to
sign the bill, he should take the opportunity to amend the code
sections to clarify that the statutory damages are not available to
classes asserting claims under the VCPA. This amendment should be
drafted in a way that ensures the limitation applies to class
actions in both state and federal courts.
In consumer class actions, the threat of statutory damages exerts
hydraulic pressure on defendants to settle. Often in consumer class
actions, each class member's claim will be worth a few dollars at
most, based on the difference in value between what a consumer paid
and the value of the product he actually received. For instance, a
class of 100,000 members might have aggregate damages of
$1,000,000. But if the applicable state consumer protection law
provides for statutory damages, the threat to the defendant
snowballs. The VCPA provides for $500 statutory damages per
violation. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 59.1-204(A). If class members can
state a claim for statutory damages, that 100,000-member class,
which has actual damages of just $1,000,000, can suddenly threaten
a judgment of $50,000,000.
Historically, some federal courts held that because Virginia does
not have a class action mechanism under state law, the VCPA's
statutory damages are not available in the class action context.
That is the approach that is most protective of businesses
operating in Virginia -- consumers can still recover actual
damages, but not windfall statutory damages. If Virginia adopts a
class action mechanism for its state courts, that argument will
vanish: defendants will no longer be able to argue in federal court
that the VCPA's statutory damages are not available in federal
class actions.
It is important to note that even now, some federal courts have
held that VCPA statutory damages are available in class actions,
because Virginia's lack of a class action mechanism is a procedural
issue rather than a substantive limitation found in the VCPA
itself. See, e.g., In re Hardieplank Fiber Cement Siding Litig.,
No. 12-MD-2359, 2013 WL 3717743, at *17 (D. Minn. July 15, 2013)
(denying motion to dismiss VCPA class action allegations because
"the lack of a class action mechanism [under Virginia law] is a
procedural matter, rather than a substantive law defining the types
of rights and remedies available under the VCPA itself"); In re
Myford Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13-cv-03072-EMC, 2016 WL 7734558,
at *27 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) ("Because Virginia's class action
ban is not part of the VCPA, and applies outside the context of the
VCPA, it is procedural rather than substantive, and precluded by
Rule 23.").
These courts' decisions are based on Shady Grove Orthopedic
Associates, P.A., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), in which the Supreme Court
held that some state-law procedural limitations on class statutory
claims do not apply in federal court. Under Shady Grove, a state
law restriction on asserting a particular type of claim on a
classwide basis does not preclude Rule 23 certification of a class
asserting that claim in federal court, because the restriction is
procedural rather than substantive in nature. However, even under
Shady Grove, a class may not proceed under Rule 23 in contravention
of any substantive provision of state law, because in those
circumstances, application of Rule 23 would have the effect of
defining or expanding "the scope of [a] state-created right." Id.
at 423 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring); id. at 453-58 (Ginsburg,
J., dissenting).
How to Limit VCPA Statutory Damages in State and Federal Class
Actions
In the wake of Shady Grove, states seeking to limit the application
of consumer-protection statutory damages in both state and federal
class actions have done so by enacting substantive limitations on
statutory damages. That is what Virginia should do here if it is
going to adopt a class mechanism for state courts. Governor
Youngkin can use Senate Bill 259 as a vehicle to amend the VCPA,
adopting a provision that substantively prohibits the assertion of
a class claim under the VCPA. See, e.g., Tenn. Code Sec.
47-18-109(g) (code section creating private right of action under
TCPA states "[n]o class action lawsuit may be brought to recover
damages for an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared to be
unlawful by this part."); Ala. Code Sec. 8-19-10(f); Ark. Code Ann.
Sec. 4-88-113(f)(1)(B); La. Rev. Stat. Sec. 51:1409(A); Miss. Code
Ann. Sec. 75-24-15(4). Such a limitation would apply in both state
and federal court. "[T]he class action limitation in the Alabama
DTPA," for example, "is intertwined with the state right as it
appears in the substantive section of the Alabama Code, applies
only to the Alabama DTPA, is included as a subdivision of the
section that would otherwise make it possible for Plaintiffs to sue
for damages and expressly states that it is intended to act as a
substantive limitation on the substantive rights created by the
statute." Ford v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. 20-cv-0890 (FLA), 2021 WL
7448507, at *26 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021).
A bill that creates a state court mechanism for class actions while
simultaneously clarifying that plaintiffs cannot assert class
claims for statutory damages under the VCPA would arguably be a net
win for Virginia businesses. Moreover, it would be consistent with
the original intent of the statutory damages provision of the VCPA:
to create an incentive for a single plaintiff to bring a consumer
protection claim when the value of his claim is negligible. By the
sponsors' admission, the class mechanism created by Senate Bill 259
is intended to achieve the same thing. Permitting both statutory
damages and class treatment provides a windfall to class members
and in terrorem damages against Virginia businesses. [GN]
VIVID SEATS: Rubinstein Sues Over Failure to Disclose Ticket Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Rubinstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VIVID SEATS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01387
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2024), is brought based on the Defendant's
failure to properly disclose the total cost for the purchase of
tickets to New York based places of entertainment on its website,
www.vividseats.com, in violation of New York's Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law ("ACAL").
The law requires that all ticket sellers list the total cost of a
ticket, inclusive of mandatory fees, before the consumer selects
the tickets for purchase to allow consumers to make more informed
decisions. The Defendant has violated this law by failing to
disclose additional "fees" (the "Fee") which increases the total
cost of the ticket during the purchase process but is only
disclosed after the ticket is selected for purchase. The Fee is
added to the total cost of the ticket price regardless of the
delivery method of the ticket. For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks
relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all other
ticket purchasers from Defendant's website, for actual and/or
statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief under ACAL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased eight tickets to a New York Mets baseball
game at Citi Field in Queens, New York on August 2, 2023, from
Defendant's website: https://www.vividseats.com/.
The Defendant owns and operates the ticket resale website,
www.vividseats.com, and sells tickets to places of entertainment
all throughout New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSON & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSON & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
- and -
Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: 305-610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Disney has been sued for allegedly underpaying maintenance workers
at its Southern California hotels near its sprawling theme park, on
top of a host of other alleged violations of labor laws.
The lawsuit, filed in Orange County Superior Court, claims workers
were forced to pay for their own tools while not being paid the
required double minimum wage and correct overtime rate. The
proposed class action seeks at least $1 million in back pay.
The complaint was filed amid a growing cost of living and poverty
crisis that has afflicted workers employed by major companies in
the entertainment industry. A UCLA Labor Center study of Universal
Studios Hollywood theme park employees found widespread poverty,
with 44 percent of workers reporting that they worried about being
evicted from their homes and more than half cutting the size of
their meals -- or skipping them altogether -- because they do not
have enough money for food. A quarter of the workforce has received
benefits through food stamps, banks or other need-based donation
programs.
According to the complaint filed against Disney, the entertainment
giant also failed to provide workers the proper rest and meal
periods, as well as accurate wage statements to ensure they are
being paid correctly, in a "willful and deliberate" manner.
The proposed class action was filed by assistant maintenance
engineer Charlie Torres and seeks to represents a group of more
than 115 current and former workers.
"Mr. Torres and so many others are told to cover the expense of
tools used on behalf of Disney who flouts the law and refuses to
pay its workers what they're due," said Ron Zambrano, a lawyer for
the proposed class, in a statement. "Disney is a massive company.
They know the law."
Disney did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In December, a discrimination lawsuit against Disney accusing it of
systematically underpaying women cleared a major hurdle when a Los
Angeles judge certified a diverse class of employees, who work
across the company's movie production arm, record labels, theme
parks and home distribution subsidiaries, among other units. It's
believed to be one of the largest classes ever suing under an equal
pay act claim. The group comprises women employed by Disney between
April 2015 and three months before trial, which is set to start in
October next year, below the level of vice president. [GN]
WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Chute Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNY CHUTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WASHINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00382-SEB-KMB (S.D. Ind., February 29,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
and violations of Illinois' Personal Information Protection Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers following a data breach.
The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Washington National Insurance Company is an insurance company, with
its principal place of business located in Carmel, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Disabled Student Transpo Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Chen and Mariel Carbone, writing for DC News Now, report that
D.C. parents and guardians of those with disabilities along with
The Arc of the United States filed a class action lawsuit against
D.C.'s Office of the State Superintendent for Education (OSSE).
The lawsuit claims that OSSE failed to provide D.C. students who
have disabilities with "safe, reliable and effective
transportation" to and from their schools. This also denied these
students the same, fair treatment to education.
Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel of The Arc,
Shira Wakschlag, said in a statement it steals the opportunities of
those students to "learn, grow, and connect with their peers."
"The buses meant to help children with disabilities build their
education and futures are instead perpetuating their exclusion,"
she stated. "When school buses become barriers themselves, we need
to fight to ensure that no child is left stranded."
The complaint claims that the OSSE Division of Transportation has
consistently failed to safely and properly transport students with
disabilities by:
-- Arriving extremely late to pick up students from their home, if
they show up at all, causing them to miss school.
-- Students get picked up early causing them to miss important
instructional time or are left stranded at school without being
guaranteed a trip back home.
-- They are being forced to spend a lot of time on board the buses
which causes physical and mental harm when they do not have access
to food, medication or bathrooms.
-- Bus drivers are not property trained medical personnel and the
buses do not have the necessary accommodations and tools needed for
children with disabilities for safe rides.
-- The buses can't be reliably tracked which means family members
don't know where their children are while on board.
Parents of five different students signed onto the class action,
including Elizabeth Daggett, who is a parent of a child with
disabilities and a plaintiff on the lawsuit.
"Every morning, I wake up and I don't know if the bus is going to
come and I don't know how that's going to impact me and my family,"
she said.
Daggett's 13-year-old son relies on OSSE transportation to get to
and from school.
"It's a waiting game. Is the bus going to come at the time it's
supposed to or not?" she said.
When the bus doesn't show up, Daggett said there's a ripple effect
that wreaks havoc on her entire family. She and her husband need to
figure out how to get their two other children, plus their son, to
school. The family has one car and both parents work, meaning
someone will be late or missed out entirely.
When the bus is late in the morning or while returning their son
home, there can be significant impacts to his health and safety.
"He could miss medication. He could be on the bus for so long he
[will have] peed his pants and he's upset," Daggett explained.
"I've heard of other people whose kids have been taken to a [wrong]
location. There are just so many concerns and you don't know what
it could be."
Dagget has testified at multiple city council hearings and has
filed petitions against OSSE. With no changes made, she decided to
join the lawsuit.
"I've done everything I can do and there's really nothing else so
I'm hopeful this will get their attention and actually focus on
fixing the system," she said.
Families on the lawsuit, like Dagget, are seeking to change the
"systemic failure" that they say violates federal and state laws --
including the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act
(IDEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act
(DCHRA), according to the release.
Under IDEA, D.C. students with disabilities are supposed to be
given free appropriate public education. In that, it must include
services and accommodations that are outlined in the students'
individualized education plans that include the necessary
transportation, the release stated.
Section 504 of the ADA and the DCHRA mandate that these students
have the same educational opportunities as everyone else and forbid
unnecessary segregation of students with disabilities, according to
the release.
The case, Robertson v. District of Columbia, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
According to the lawsuit against the OSSE, the office's publicly
reported data showed that in the first five months of the 2023-2024
school year, there were more than 1,000 delays and cancellations.
From Jan. 30, 2023, to March 15, 2023, there were more than 1,500
route delays and cancellations.
OSSE transports around 4,100 students with disabilities in the
District, according to the lawsuit.
In a response to DC News Now, an OSSE spokesperson said that they
do not comment on pending litigation.
The spokesperson said that the office remains committed to offering
"safe, reliable, and efficient transportation services" to all D.C.
students.
OSSE has deployed creative and urgent strategies to serve our
students including contracting with private transportation vendors
to cover specific routes, offering attendance incentives to drivers
and attendants, working to improve route efficiency, and providing
self-transportation reimbursement to families. Upcoming efforts
include the launch of our commercial driver's license (CDL) academy
to build a pipeline of bus drivers and continually working to
strengthen workplace culture. -- Statement From The Office Of The
State Superintendent Of Education
OSSE also said that it had maintained "above a 95% on-time route
coverage every day across over 450 daily bus routes" despite a
nationwide bus driver shortage. [GN]
WELCH FOODS: Bustamante Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA BUSTAMANTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELCH FOODS INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00420-JES-SBC (S.D. Cal., March 1, 2024) alleges that
the Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and
sells mislabeled Welch's Light Grape Juice Product.
According to the complaint, the packaging of the Product
prominently displays on the side of the label the claim that this
Product contains "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives." This
statement is false. The product is made with ascorbic acid, an
artificial preservative ingredient used in beverage products.
The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is
intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a
premium product that is free from artificial preservatives.
Plaintiff, who purchased the Products in California, was deceived
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on her
own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy
Defendant's unlawful acts, says the suit.
WELCH FOODS INC. doing business as Welch's, produces and markets
grape products. The Company offers refrigerated juices, juice
cocktails, jams and jellies, and snacks. The company serves the
foodservice customers such as schools, business and industry,
lodging, colleges and universities, healthcare, and restaurants.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
WELCH FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Grape Juice False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims Welch Foods, Inc. has misled consumers
by falsely advertising its Welch's Light Grape Juice as free from
artificial preservatives.
The 23-page lawsuit alleges that despite the packaging claim that
the product has "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives," the
juice, in fact, contains ascorbic acid -- a synthetic ingredient
often used as a preservative in beverage products.
Ascorbic acid, which the case says is decidedly synthetic, is
plainly recognized as a preservative by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, the suit relays. According to the complaint, the
additive acts as an antioxidant, which helps preserve color and
freshness in foods.
The filing contends that the juice's representation is misleading
because ascorbic acid functions as a preservative even if used in
small amounts or added for another purpose.
The plaintiff, a California resident, says she has purchased the
grape juice numerous times with the belief that it contained no
artificial preservatives. The woman claims she would not have paid
as much for the product, or bought it at all, had she known it was
actually made with the synthetic additive ascorbic acid.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased Welch's Light
Grape Juice for personal use within California during the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Enrolls Customers to Unwanted Products, Gonzales Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA GONZALES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01223-AGT (N.D. Cal., February
29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, and for unjust
enrichment, conversion, and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon
seclusion.
The case arises from Wells Fargo's practice of unilaterally
enrolling customers in various financial products or services they
did not agree to and never knew about. Wells Fargo paid itself
fees, costs, interest, and other consideration from the customers
for these unwanted products and services, such as Accidental Death
insurance or Identity Theft Protection. As a result of the
Defendants' unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered actual damages, and were forced to pay fees, penalties,
interest, and costs, says the suit.
Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association, with its
primary place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alisa Rose Adams, Esq.
THE DANN LAW FIRM
26100 Towne Center Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
E-mail: aadams@dannlaw.com
- and -
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Court Rules in Favor of Alaska
--------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that a decision was made
in favor of the State of Alaska with regards to sulfolane
contamination.
The actions primarily arise from sulfolane contamination allegedly
emanating from the refinery in North Pole, Alaska, from 1980 until
2004, through its wholly owned subsidiaries Williams Alaska
Petroleum Inc. (WAPI) and MAPCO Inc.
The State of Alaska filed its action in March 2014, seeking
damages. The City of North Pole (North Pole) filed its lawsuit in
November 2014, seeking past and future damages, as well as punitive
damages. The company asserted counterclaims against the State of
Alaska and North Pole.
The State of Alaska later announced the discovery of additional
contaminants per- and polyfluoralkyl (PFOS and PFOA) offsite of the
refinery, and the court permitted the State of Alaska to amend its
complaint to add a claim for offsite PFOS/PFOA contamination. The
court subsequently remanded the offsite PFOS/PFOA claims to the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for investigation
and stayed the claims pending their potential resolution at the
administrative agency. Several trial dates encompassing all three
cases have been scheduled and stricken.
In the summer of 2019, the court deconsolidated the cases for
purposes of trial. A bench trial on all claims except North Pole's
claims began in October 2019. In January 2020, the Alaska Superior
Court issued its Memorandum of Decision finding in favor of the
State of Alaska and the Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC. The
court found that FHRA is not entitled to contractual
indemnification from the company because FHRA contributed to the
sulfolane contamination.
On March 23, 2020, the court entered final judgment in the case.
Filing deadlines were stayed until May 1, 2020. However, on April
21, 2020, the company filed a Notice of Appeal and also filed
post-judgment motions including a Motion for New Trial and a Motion
to Alter or Amend the Judgment. These post-trial motions were
resolved with the court's denial of the last motion on June 11,
2020. Our Statement of Points on Appeal was filed on July 13, 2020.
On June 22, 2020, the court stayed the North Pole's case pending
resolution of the appeal in the State of Alaska and FHRA case. On
December 23, 2020, the company filed its opening brief on appeal.
Oral argument was held on December 15, 2021.
On May 26, 2023, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its Opinion
substantially affirming the Superior Court's decision. On June 26,
2023, the company filed a motion to stay the effect of the Alaska
Supreme Court's Opinion because it intended to file a petition for
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On July 18,
2023, the Superior Court granted its stay of execution of the
monetary judgment portions of the judgment while seeking review
before the United States Supreme Court. On September 25, 2023, the
company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied in January
2024. The North Pole claims were also settled in January 2024.
The Williams Companies, Inc. is into gas transmission and
pipelines.
WORLEY LIMITED: To Pay Class Suit Bill After Pyrrhic Court Win
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza, writing for Southern Highland News, reports that a
class action filed by irate shareholders against engineering
services firm Worley has been dismissed for a second time with the
company set to recoup its extensive legal bill for the long-running
dispute.
A Federal Court judge found investors only succeeded in a "Pyrrhic
victory" as they failed to gain any compensation despite proving
the company misled the market through financial statements made in
2013.
In the Shine Lawyers-led case, Worley was accused of hyping up its
earnings for the 2014 financial year including during an October
2013 strategy presentation for investors.
Two months earlier, it announced an 2013 financial year profit of
$322 million which it expected to improve.
In November that year, it downgraded its FY2014 net profit after
tax forecast $260 million to $300 million.
The class action, filed in the Federal Court in October 2015,
accused the firm of breaching its continuous disclosure obligations
because of the hyped-up financial figures.
These statements resulted in a 26 per cent fall in the company's
share price, reducing its market capitalisation by $1.375 billion,
the class action alleged.
The proceeding was dismissed by Justice Jacqueline Gleeson, now a
High Court judge, in a complete win for Worley in October 2020.
However, this decision was overturned on appeal in the Full Court
in March 2022 and an application for special leave filed by Worley
in the High Court was dismissed in October that year.
A new hearing was scheduled before Justice Ian Jackman in late
2023.
The judge found Worley engaged in misleading behaviour and breached
its continuous disclosure obligations.
However, he also found the shareholders, headed by lead applicant
and investor Larry Crowley, did not show that these contraventions
actually caused them any loss.
In failing to obtain any sort of damages, Mr Crowley was ordered to
pay Worley's legal bill for the eight-and-a-half year case.
"The applicant's limited success has not produced any substantial
benefit by way of compensation to the applicant or group members,"
Justice Jackson wrote.
"A Pyrrhic victory such as that would not be a sound basis on which
to make an award of costs in the applicant's favour."
On its website, Shine has promised investors they would not be out
of pocket for any costs if the class action was unsuccessful.
Shine and Worley have been approached for comment. [GN]
YANKEE CANDLE: Settles Wages Underpayment Class Suit for $1.2-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin County Now reports that Yankee Candle just settled a class
action lawsuit for $1.2 million by an employee who claimed
employees were not being fairly paid due to the company's
time-rounding policy that heavily benefited the company.
Yankee Candle would round employee's time to the nearest fifteen
minute mark, but strategically placed policies that ensured
employees would work for minutes they wouldn't be paid for, over
years resulting in thousands of unpaid hours. 2,465 current and
former employees will be eligible for a pro-rated amount of the
settlement, based on the length of their employment, and a portion
of the settlement is set aside for legal fees. [GN]
ZUORA INC: Johnson Suit Seeks to Invalidate Advance Notice Bylaw
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
stockholders of ZUORA, INC., Plaintiff v. OMAR P. ABBOSH, SARAH R.
BOND, KENNETH A. GOLDMAN, TIMOTHY HALEY, LAURA A. CLAYTON
MCDONNELL, JOSEPH OSNOSS, JASON PRESSMAN, AMY GUGGENHEIM SHENKEN,
TIEN TZUO, and ZUORA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0191 (Del.
Ch., February 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for declaratory judgment and breach of fiduciary duty.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating Zuora's Advance
Notice Bylaw. According to the complaint, the Advance Notice Bylaw
is highly problematic and effectively serves as a deterrent to
stockholder nominations because of its definition of "Acting in
Concert," which contains both a "Wolf-Pack Provision," which deems
stockholders to be Acting in Concert with one another if they act
in parallel with each other, and a "Daisy Chain Provision," which
deems two stockholders working with the same third party to be
Acting in Concert, regardless of whether the two stockholders know
about each other's existence.
As a result, the Advance Notice Bylaw is an effective deterrent to
any stockholder considering nominating candidates for election to
the board, impermissibly limits the scope of stockholders' voting
rights to voting for or against candidates nominated by the board
and is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion that
stockholders' right to vote includes the right to nominate, says
the suit.
Zuora, Inc. is a cloud-based software company, headquartered in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Daniel Baker, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
lindsay@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
daniel@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
Abbott Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
[*] Class Action Seeks Damages for Intergenerational Trauma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darla Ponace, writing for CBC News, reports that Matthew Brandon
was six years old when he made his way into Chris and Shannon
Gardiner's life.
The boy was non-verbal and had complex needs, and he had already
been moved around a lot in the foster care system.
"My wife and I had no training in this. We weren't even licensed
foster parents," said Chris Gardiner, who is still Brandon's
caregiver and guardian.
Gardiner said he and his wife were originally meant to keep Brandon
for a single weekend, as an emergency placement, but that has
turned into two and a half decades of caring for and loving
Brandon.
Now, the Gardiners are looking for some justice for him, and
others. Brandon is the representative claimant in a new proposed
class action lawsuit against the federal government seeking damages
for the intergenerational trauma caused by residential schools.
The Gardiners, who live in Saskatchewan Beach, about 55 kilometres
northwest of Regina, said all they were initially told about
Brandon was that his history was complex. They knew he had been
apprehended at 18 months old. However, his medical records were
sealed.
"We'd been raising a child with autism," Gardiner said. "We sat in
countless meetings dealing with autism-related conversations, only
to discover in 2012 -- after the psychologists had a peek into the
social services file -- that he had actually endured a brain
injury."
Brandon is now 32. But the effects of physical trauma he endured as
a toddler remain. He is non-verbal, suffers from intellectual
disability, cerebral palsy and other medical conditions, and is
unable to care for himself.
The proposed class action, filed by Merchant Law Group LLP, argues
that the abuse Brandon's biological parents endured during their
time as students at residential school directly influenced the way
they parented their children.
Specifically, it argues that Brandon's father, who is now deceased,
was "disciplined with violence" while at residential school and
carried that with him in the way he treated his own children,
resulting in Brandon suffering a severe injury with lifelong
damage.
Gardiner said he believes that intergenerational trauma from
residential schools is the main reason Brandon has suffered so
severely in his life.
"It wasn't just a harm that affected a small group of people," he
said. "It actually is intergenerational and has caused calamity and
damage to generations of Indigenous people in this country."
Statement of claim filed
The proposed class action was filed Feb. 28 in federal court. It's
a national claim to gain compensation for children of residential
school survivors.
The statement of claim says that residential schools were part of a
policy that the federal government implemented to "take the Indian
out of the child," which caused tremendous turmoil in the structure
of family dynamics.
More than 150,000 First Nations, Métis and Inuit children were
forced to attend church-run, government-funded residential schools
between the 1870s and late 1990s.
"Everyone within the Indigenous community, and particularly the
leadership, have talked about and been aware of the
intergenerational impact of residential schools," lawyer Tony
Merchant said in an interview.
Merchant noted that a class action lawsuit for residential school
survivors was settled and survivors received compensation through
the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
Since then, there has been mounting evidence of the effects of
intergenerational trauma, Merchant said.
The next step for the proposed class action is for it to be
certified, and Merchant said his law firm is collecting individual
stories of people impacted by intergenerational trauma.
CBC News asked for comment from the Canadian Department of Justice.
A response had not been received by the time of publication.
Raising awareness
Gardiner said that the class action lawsuit is not just about
compensation.
He said he is hoping to raise awareness about the intergenerational
trauma from residential schools that every generation has suffered.
He also wants to educate the public about the "colonial system that
refused to give them answers" after it apprehended Brandon.
"Even under our watch, we've actually had to endure him not getting
all that he needs," Gardiner said. "And that's just been through
relentless advocacy and our articulating the issues and debates and
endless meetings, endless effort."
Gardiner said he hopes the lawsuit will "break the spell" of the
power held by the Canadian institutions that were behind the
residential school system and everything that has followed.
"They are so powerful, and they are so networked, and I can confirm
that the residential school system is still alive and well," he
said. "It has just been repackaged." [GN]
[^] 2024 Class Action Conference Sponsors Named, Register Today!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference. This year's event is being sponsored by:
* Atticus Administration, LLC;
* Broadridge, a global Fintech leader;
* Darrow.ai;
* Davis Wright Tremaine LLP;
* Duane Morris LLP;
* Giftogram;
* Hook Point;
* JND Legal Administration;
* Parabellum Capital;
* Simpluris; and
* Tremendous, a payouts platform
Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.
CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday,
May 6, 2024. To register, visit
https://www.classactionconference.com/
For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Has $498MM Gross Reserves as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc. (AFG) has reported $498 million
gross reserves at year ended December 31, 2023, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "AFG's property and casualty group, like many
others in the industry, has A&E claims arising in most cases from
general liability policies written more than thirty-five years ago.
The establishment of reserves for such A&E claims presents unique
and difficult challenges and is subject to uncertainties
significantly greater than those presented by other types of
claims.
"In addition to its ongoing internal monitoring of asbestos and
environmental exposures, AFG has historically conducted periodic
comprehensive external studies of its asbestos and environmental
reserves relating to the run-off operations of its property and
casualty insurance segment and its exposures related to former
railroad and manufacturing operations and sites with the aid of
specialty actuarial, engineering and consulting firms and outside
counsel, with an in-depth internal review during all other years.
"An in-depth internal review of AFG's A&E reserves was completed in
the third quarter of 2023 by AFG's internal A&E claims specialists
in consultation with specialty outside counsel. The 2023 internal
review identified no new trends and recent claims activity was
generally consistent with AFG's expectations resulting from AFG's
in-depth internal reviews in 2022 and 2021 and most recent external
study in 2020. As a result, the 2023 review resulted in no net
change to AFG's property and casualty insurance segment's asbestos
and environmental reserves. Over the past few years, the focus of
AFG's asbestos claims litigation has shifted to smaller companies
and companies with ancillary exposures. AFG's insureds with these
exposures have been the driver of the property and casualty
segment's asbestos reserve increases in recent years."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=phRQQT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Corp. Defends Personal Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Some of Alcoa Corporation's subsidiaries as premises owners are
defendants in active lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions on
behalf of persons seeking damages for alleged personal injury as a
result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various facilities,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and acquired companies all
have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide
coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide
layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying
locations. We have significant insurance coverage and believe that
our reserves are adequate for known asbestos exposure related
liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and
are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash
flows, and financial position of Alcoa Corporation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nvSPtv
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Reports $310K Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERISAFE, Inc., has $310,000 reserves for loss and loss adjustment
expenses (LAE) for the year ended December 31, 2023, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Reserves established for workers' compensation
insurance includes the exposure to occupational disease or
accidents related to asbestos or environmental claims. The
exposure to asbestos claims emanates from the direct sale of
workers' compensation insurance. These claims resulted from
industry workers who were exposed to tremolite asbestos dust and
electricians and carpenters who were exposed to products that
contained asbestos. There has been no known exposure to asbestos
claims arising from assumed business. The emergence of these
claims is slow and highly unpredictable. The Company estimates
full impact of the asbestos exposure by establishing full case
basis reserves on all known losses. Reserves for losses incurred
but not reported (IBNR) include a provision for development of
reserves on reported losses. Reserves are established for loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) associated with these case and IBNR loss
reserves."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GaYdCo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business
which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which
were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The
Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended
by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date,
no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Aoqoxj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 278 Individual Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold
prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused
mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, there were 278
individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal
courts throughout the United States, as compared to 227 cases as of
December 31, 2022. During the year ended December 31, 2023, 169 new
cases were filed and 118 cases were resolved by voluntary
dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the
settlements in periods presented was not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to such periods' results of
operations.
"A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending
and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that
a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance
policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy
limits and insurance carrier insolve"ncies.
"While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases
are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there
can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these
matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OSrs1x
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., has reported $8 million accrued
liability for asbestos suits at December 31, 2023, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, that are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.
At December 31, 2023, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought through 2035 as
shown in the following table. These estimates were based upon a
combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor
assessment. Courts have applied, and may continue to apply,
different standards for determining liability in asbestos suits
than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the
Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility
of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the
suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of
such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers’ compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted
to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through
rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers’
compensation claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1SFDOV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Recognizes $423MM Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$423 million and $457 million at December 31, 2023, and 2022,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These reserves are based upon Duke Energy
Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims
through 2043 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of
the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management
does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and
medical costs that might be incurred after 2043 related to such
potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur
asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.
"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $572 million and $595 million at December 31, 2023,
and 2022, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other
within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current
Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up
to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance
carrier. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties
regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy
Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of
recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong
financial strength rating.
"The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables for the
asbestos-related injuries and damages is $9 million as of December
31, 2023, and $12 million as of December 31, 2022, for both Duke
Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas. The insurance receivable is
evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses,
current conditions and expected conditions around collectability.
Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment
history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from
credit agencies."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PfhkS9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $567MM Defendant A&E Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited has $567 million of defendant asbestos and
environmental liabilities as of December 31, 2023, substantially
all of which consists of defendant asbestos liabilities, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Defendant asbestos liabilities include amounts
for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future
asbestos-related claims, determined by management using actuarial
methods.
"A number of our subsidiaries, and counterparties who underwrote
the insurance policy portfolios we assumed, have exposure to bodily
injury claims from alleged exposure to asbestos.
"The United States asbestos exposure arises mainly from general
liability insurance policies underwritten prior to 1986, which our
subsidiaries or counterparties either wrote directly, on a primary
or excess basis, or as reinsurance.
"Our United Kingdom asbestos exposures emanate from Employers'
Liability insurance policies written in 2005 and prior. Asbestos
bodily injury claims differ from other bodily injury claims due to
the long latency period for asbestos, which often triggers a
policyholder's coverage over multiple policy periods. The long
latency period, combined with the lack of clear judicial precedent
with respect to coverage interpretations and expanded theories of
liability, increases the uncertainty of the asbestos claim reserve
estimates.
"As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, the net loss reserves for
asbestos-related claims comprised 13.0% and 13.6%, respectively, of
total Run-off net reserves for losses and LAE liabilities excluding
ULAE. In addition as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, we also had
$734 million and $786 million of defendant asbestos liabilities,
respectively18 .
Environmental Claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QNsTn6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Faces 195 Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits have been filed in state courts against primarily
Entergy Texas and Entergy Louisiana by individuals alleging
exposure to asbestos while working at Entergy facilities between
1955 and 1980, wherein Entergy Corporation is being sued as a
premises owner, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Currently, there are approximately 195 lawsuits involving
approximately 345 claimants. Management believes that adequate
provisions have been established to cover any exposure.
Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover
reimbursements. Management believes that loss exposure has been
and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the
financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of the
Utility operating companies.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kgk9dw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Reports $12.4MM Net A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2023, had
$12.4 million of net asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised
of $10.3 million of direct reserves and $2.1 million of assumed
reinsurance pool reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "This compares to net reserves of $11.9 million
as of December 31, 2022. Ending loss and LAE reserves for all
direct business written by our insurance companies related to
asbestos and environmental damage liability were $10.3 million and
$9.8 million, net of reinsurance of $16.9 million and $16.8 million
for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.
Activity for our direct asbestos and environmental reserves was not
significant to our 2023 or 2022 financial results. As a result of
our historical direct underwriting mix of Core Commercial and
Specialty policies toward smaller and middle market risks, past
asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience has
remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE incurred
experience. Although we attempt to limit our exposures to asbestos
and environmental damage liability through specific policy
exclusions, we have been, and may continue to be, subject to claims
related to these exposures.
"In addition to reserves we carry to cover exposure in our direct
business, we have established gross and net loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability. As of December 31, 2023, we had
$30.3 million of gross reserves and $2.1 million of net reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business. This compares to $30.5
million of gross loss and LAE reserves and $2.1 million of net loss
and LAE reserves at December 31, 2022. These reserves relate to
pools in which we have terminated our participation; however, we
continue to be subject to claims related to years in which we were
a participant. Results of operations from these pools are included
in our Other segment. A significant part of our gross pool reserves
relates to our participation in the ECRA voluntary pool. In 1982,
the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been
in run-off. During 2021, we entered into an agreement to transfer
our ECRA pool participations to a third-party reinsurer. This
transfer was executed through a 100% reinsurance arrangement for
our ECRA claim liability participations written during the period
1950 to 1982. This transaction had no significant impact on our
2021 results of operations. This reinsurance arrangement does not
relieve us from our obligations to policyholders and a failure of
the reinsurer to honor their obligations could result in losses to
us. The reinsurer is pursuing a novation for our ECRA claim
liability participations which, if achieved, would relieve us from
our obligations to policyholders. If the reinsurer is unable to
achieve this novation then we have the option to cancel this
reinsurance arrangement.
"We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and
toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law, and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not believed to be
significant, their existence gives rise to uncertainty and are
discussed because of the possibility that they may become
significant. We believe that, notwithstanding the evolution of case
law expanding liability in asbestos and environmental claims,
recorded reserves related to these claims are adequate.
Nevertheless, the asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability
reserves could be revised, and any such revisions could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations for a
particular quarterly or annual period, or on our financial
position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VRGpRu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of
exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of
the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether
and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover
these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to
claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for
various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting
in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UPWvfx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Group Has $132.5MM Gross A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Group Inc., at December 31, 2023, has A&E reserves of $132.5
million and $39.6 million on a gross and net basis, respectively,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
At December 31, 2022, A&E reserves were $153.2 million and $54.5
million on a gross and net basis, respectively.
The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims
primarily resulting from policies written by acquired insurance
operations before their acquisition by the Company. The Company's
exposure to A&E claims originated from umbrella, excess and
commercial general liability insurance policies and assumed
reinsurance contracts that were written on an occurrence basis from
the 1970s to mid-1980s. Exposure also originated from claims-made
policies that were designed to cover environmental risks provided
that all other terms and conditions of the policy were met. A&E
claims include property damage and clean-up costs related to
pollution, as well as personal injury allegedly arising from
exposure to hazardous materials. Development on A&E loss reserves
is monitored separately from the Company's ongoing underwriting
operations and is not included in a reportable segment.
The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of
ultimate settlement values based on statistical analysis of these
reserves by the Company's actuaries. A&E exposures are subject to
significant uncertainty due to potential loss severity and
frequency resulting from the uncertain and unfavorable legal
climate. A&E reserves could be subject to increases in the future,
however, management believes the Company's gross and net A&E
reserves at December 31, 2023 are adequate.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rSzgrX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
involving exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases involve exposure to asbestos in
premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by
subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never manufactured, sold, or
distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these
cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve
multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual for these proceedings,
as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3SJ2Or
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits against Pfizer Inc., American Optical and certain
of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.
"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IBsaxt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $48MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, has
asbestos-related reserves totaled $48 million and $51 million,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
As of December 31, 2023, the Company was aware of certain
asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of
its subsidiaries. The Company is defending these asbestos-related
claims vigorously. The asbestos-related claims consist of claims
against the Company alleging: exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by
the Company or its subsidiaries ("Products Claims"); personal
injury caused by asbestos on premises presently or formerly owned,
leased or occupied by the Company ("Premises Claims"); and
asbestos-related claims against a subsidiary the Company acquired
in 2013 ("Subsidiary Claims").
The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed,
dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or
revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known
and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any,
available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of
the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the
jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of
any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii)
the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure
for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the claimants'
alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (viii) potential
changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All
of these factors may have a material effect upon future
asbestos-related liability estimates.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https:
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XXNeMq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,390 Cases Pending at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at December 31, 2023, has 1,390
cases outstanding for which it may be responsible for any related
liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through
December 31, 2023, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards
of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$74.6 million. A substantial increase in the number of new claims,
or increased settlement payments, or awards of asbestos-related
damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations.
"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of
asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed
claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average
future settlement values. Based on the information contained in
the actuarial study and all other available information considered
by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Future legal
costs are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d7mISq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 257 Exposure Suits as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary was named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and
involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 257 lawsuits with a corresponding number
of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been
provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold
in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers
agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the
subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved in September
2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity that begins
making payments in 2024. Together with a coverage-in-place
agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by
other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources
to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits
of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance
as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LQLcDN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Tech. Faces Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending lawsuits in different
jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We have been and expect to continue to be
subject to various product liability claims or other lawsuits,
including, among others, alleging that our products include
inadequate or improper instructions for use or installation,
inadequate warnings concerning the effects of the failure of our
products, alleged manufacturing or design defects, or allegations
that our products contain asbestos. If we do not have adequate
insurance or contractual indemnification, damages from these claims
would have to be paid from our assets and could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity and
financial condition. Like other manufacturers and distributors of
products designed to control and regulate fluids and gases, we face
an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims and other
lawsuits in the event that the use of our products results in
personal injury, property damage or business interruption to our
customers. We cannot be certain that our products will be
completely free from defect. In addition, in certain cases, we rely
on third-party manufacturers for our products or components of our
products. We cannot be certain that our insurance coverage will
continue to be available to us at a reasonable cost, or, if
available, will be adequate to cover any such liabilities."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GdY1Ku
*********
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 ***