/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***