/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240412.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 75 Headlines 2953 BROADWAY: Ye Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement AGILON HEALTH: Hope Sues Over Misleading Business Statements AIR METHODS: Milton Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ALLSTATE LIFE: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert. Bid ALTA MESA: Court Sets May 17 Deadline for Class Action Opt-Out AMAZON.COM INC: Johnson Sues Over Disclosure of Sensitive Info AMAZON.COM INC: Order on Deposition Subpoena Entered in Mahone Suit AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Hartwig Case Due April 12 AMERICAN BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jones Claims APPHARVEST INC: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement APPLE INC: Faces Levine Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly APPLE INC: Ultra Home Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach AUSTRALIA: NFF Decries Latest Move In Cattle Export Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid w/o Prejudice BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 16 BEST BUY: Willis Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD: Bid to Dismiss Paul Class Suit Denied BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Class Action Over Overstated Drug Prospects BURNETT MEDICAL: Bid & Brief To Decertify Classes Due Jan. 24, 2025 CADENCE BANK: Fails to Protect Private Info, Triplett Suit Says CALIFORNIA PAK: Figueroa Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules CBR SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Umbilical Cord Blood Banking Services CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Pomalidomide Market Monopoly CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Therapy My Way Sues Over Private Data Breach CHEMOURS COMPANY: Masel Sues Over Securities Laws' Violations CIGNA HEALTH: RJ Appeals Denial of Bid to Renew Class Cert. Motion CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Mai Sues Over Tire Price-Fixing CORSAIR GAMING: Court Vacates April 18 Daubert Motions Hearing D & C LOOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guzman Suit Claims D AND EAST: Court OKs Settlement in Mismanaged Apartments' Suit DAS ACQUISITION: Nash et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices DECKERS CONSUMER: Faces Monegan Suit Over Labor Law Violations DELTA COUNTY, TX: Bid for Class Cert. Denied w/o Prejudice DOCTORS BEST: Court Enters Order Closing Casey Class Action DOXIMITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims DRAFTKINGS INC: Court OKs Request to Transfer Deceptive Ads' Suit EQUIFAX INFO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Torres EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Landman Sues Over Misleading Driving Information GEORGE WASHINGTON: Sued Over Unregistered Foreign Agent Activities GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Destroy Private Browsing Data to Settle Suit GT EXPRESS: Neisinger & Parker Sue Over Worker Misclassification HBL BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Settlement INSURANCE PIPELINE: Woods Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Wages IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 7 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vishnoi Sues Over Acne Products' False Ads KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Putative Class Action KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Profit-Sharing Program KINDRED HOSPITALITY: Faces Verhaak Suit Over Tip Misappropriation LARRY'S FURNITURE: Wint Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches LENNY & LARRY'S: Garica & Kotcher Sue Over False Product Labeling LIMNI LLC: Faces Makaj Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Insurance Suit Dismissed LORDSTOWN MOTORS: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 11 LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud M.G. TILE: Matamoros and Alonzo Sue Over Labor Law Breaches MANPOWER US: Faces Williams Suit Over FLSA Breach MAP FOODS: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MEADOW LARK: Quinn May Leave to File Amended Complaint MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Partly Favors Consumers in Diesel Suit META PLATFORMS: Albemarle County Joins Social Media Platform Suit MICHIGAN: Inmates' Family Members, Parents Sued Over Illegal Scheme MOMENTUS INC: July 4 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set NEW YORK, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Greene Suit NEXT BRIDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 14 NOHO HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Claims OPEN DOOR: Court Stays Discovery in Sharma Suit ORACLE AMERICA: Realscape Group Sues Over Breach of Contract OXY USA: CRFT Class Cert Bid Overruled w/o Prejudice to Refiiling PACIFIC RED: Faces Class Action Over Wage and Hour Violations PANAMERICAN CONSULTING: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Fraud PAPAYA GAMING: Kelly-Starkebaum Alleges Deceptive Gaming Practices PLUG POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 21 PLUNKETT’S PEST: Followell Seeks Route Technician's Unpaid OT PORSCHE CARS: Parties in Abel Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines PRACTICE RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit PRACTICE RESOURCES: Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Harker Sues Over Private Data Breach PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Weaver Privacy Suit Transferred to D. Mass PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on June 13 QIHOO 360: $29.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 1 QUEBEC: Court Hears Class Action Lawsuit by Taxi Drivers RAY'S SMOOTHIES: Garcia Sues Over Labor Law Breaches REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.25-Mil RESPIRONICS COLORADO: Faces Dillon Suit Over Private Data Breach ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sodha Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Appeals Stay Bid Denial in Simon Suit to 9th Cir SAS RETAIL: Faces Marbley Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. SONDER HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims SPRUCE SERVICES: Saleh Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages STAR PETROLEUM: Fishing Community Files Class Suit Over Oil Spill STATE FARM: 11th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Vehicle Valuation Suit STOKE THERAPEUTICS: Carroll Seeks Advance Notice Bylaw Invalidation T-MOBILE USA: May Appeal Pending Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit TAQUERIA EMILIO: Gonzales Seeks Proper Overtime Wages TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Williams Suit Over Labor Code Breaches TELEFLORA LLC: Cummings Sues Over Private Data Breach TIMOTHY PADGETT: Gensey Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Classes TRADER JOE'S: Court Narrows Claims in Chocolate-Related Suit TRANSFORM SEARS: Hoffman Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Prompt Accessibility for Wheelchair Users WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Ezricare Artificial Tears WALMART INC: Williams Sues Over Mislabeled Acne Cream Products WALT DISNEY: Carano Files Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal WELLNOW URGENT: Maguire-Whipple Balks at Unprotected Personal Info WELLS FARGO: Faces New Class Action Overcharging Servicemen WELLS FARGO: Goldovsky Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities WHALECO INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Eakins Suit WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Job Postings Lack Wage Info, Yount Says [*] Levine Law Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference [*] Miller Kaplan Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference [*] Parabellum Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference [^] 2024 Class Action Conference Agenda Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Defends PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 372 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $10.7MM Net Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,510 Exposure Cases Pending ********* 2953 BROADWAY: Ye Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as XING YE et al., v. 2953 BROADWAY INC. d/b/a VINE SUSHI et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04941-JHR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rearden entered an amended order referring to the designated Magistrate Judge for the following purpose: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement)’ -- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute; and -- Settlement. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bQbUmT at no extra charge.[CC] AGILON HEALTH: Hope Sues Over Misleading Business Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK HARRIS HOPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGILON HEALTH, INC., STEVEN J. SELL, AND TIMOTHY S. BENSLEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex., March 25, 2024) seeks to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Agilon common stock between November 4, 2022, and January 4, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, Defendants repeatedly touted the strength of the Agilon's medical margin. Additionally, Defendants downplayed the significant cost pressures on the Agilon's medical margin and profitability. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Agilon's common stock when the truth was revealed, Plaintiff and other members of the class have suffered significant damages, says the suit. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq. Cody Hill, Esq. Jessica Underwood, Esq. NIX PATTERSON, LLP 8701 Bee Cave Road Building 1, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 Facsimile: (512) 495-1534 E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com codyhill@nixlaw.com junderwood@nixlaw.com - and - Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Jonathan Z. Naji, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com jnaji@ktmc.com AIR METHODS: Milton Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info --------------------------------------------------------------- GENOVEVA MILTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00719-SBP (D. Colo., March 15, 2024) arises out of the November 9, 2023 data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Air Methods, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, "the Private Information") of Representative Plaintiff and other individuals associated with Defendant. According to the complaint, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft as a result of the Data Breach. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have or soon may incur out of pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the suit. Through this Complaint, Representative Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Air Methods Corporation provides air medical transportation services throughout the United States and designs, manufactures, and installs medical aircraft interiors.[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 - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com ALLSTATE LIFE: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT, v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within 21 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Class and Sub-Class contending that all the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied. The Class: "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of the Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that the Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first providing all the notices, grace periods, and offers of designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72." The Elder Abuse Sub-Class: "All members of the Class defined above who were also 65 years of age or older at the time the policy lapsed or terminated. On May 8, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant wrongfully lapsed or terminated life insurance policies, including hers, without first providing all the consumer protections mandated by California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72, namely: minimum grace periods, proper notices of lapse, and the right to designate others to receive important duplicative notices and information regarding the insurance policy. Allstate is a financial services company. A copy of the Court's recommendations dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bm2zlM at no extra charge.[CC] ALTA MESA: Court Sets May 17 Deadline for Class Action Opt-Out --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE ALTA MESA RESOURCES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 4:19-cv-00957 Judge George C. Hanks, Jr SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: (1) ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF ALTA MESA (SILVER RUN II) COMMON STOCK AND/OR SILVER RUN II UNITS ON JANUARY 22, 2018; AND (2) ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES OF ALTA MESA / SILVER RUN II FROM AUGUST 16, 2017 THROUGH MAY 17, 2019, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court") that a class action lawsuit is now pending in the Court under the above caption (the "Action") against (i) Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. f/k/a Silver Run II ("AMR"), (ii) Riverstone Holdings, LLC, (iii) HPS Investment Partners, LLC, (iv) Bayou City Energy Management, LLC, (v) ARM Energy Holdings, LLC and (vi) certain current and former officers and directors of AMR. The Action has been certified by the Court to proceed as a class action on behalf of individuals and entities meeting the precise definition below (the "Class" and "Class Members"). THIS NOTICE IS NOT A SETTLEMENT NOTICE AND YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM AT THIS TIME. NO ACTION ON YOUR PART IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. This is a securities class action against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Class Representatives allege that certain Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in the Definitive Proxy Statement ("Proxy") issued in connection with the Business Combination in which Silver Run II "De-SPAC'd," acquiring Alta Mesa Holdings and Kingfisher Midstream and changing its name to Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. Class Representatives also allege that certain Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in other public statements during the Class Period. Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing asserted in the Action and deny any liability whatsoever to any members of the Class. By an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification dated January 24, 2022, the Court certified the following class (the "Class"): (a) All persons and entities that held shares of Alta Mesa (Silver Run II) common stock (CUSIP 02133L109; ticker "SRUN"), and/or Silver Run II Units ("Silver Run Units") (CUSIP 82812A202; ticker "SRUNU") on the January 22, 2018 record date that were entitled to vote on Alta Mesa's proposed transaction with AMH and Kingfisher (the "Section 14a Class Members"); (b) All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Alta Mesa (Silver Run II) common stock (CUSIP 02133L109; ticker "SRUN"), Alta Mesa (Silver Run II) warrants (CUSIP 02133L117; ticker "SRUNW"), and/or Silver Run II Units ("Silver Run Units") (CUSIP 82812A202; ticker "SRUNU") on or after August 16, 2017 and prior to the closing of the Business Combination on February 9, 2018 (the "Silver Run Class Members"); and (c) All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Alta Mesa common stock (CUSIP 02133L109; ticker "AMR") or Alta Mesa warrants (CUSIP 02133L117; ticker "AMRWW") (other than those automatically converted from Silver Run Units by operation of the Business Combination) between the February 9, 2018 closing of the Business Combination and May 17, 2019 (inclusive) (the "Alta Mesa Class Members"). (Dkt. No. 241). Certain individuals and entities are excluded from the Class. (Dkt. No. 241). A full Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice") is available on the website www.AltaMesaSecuritiesLitigation.com/notice. If you believe you may be a member of the Class and you would like a printed copy of the Notice, you may request one from: Alta Mesa Resources Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91218 info@AltaMesaSecuritiesLitigation.com 855-208-4124 If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a Class Member. If you want to remain a Class Member, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in securities of Alta Mesa/Silver Run II. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address, please send the Notice Administrator written notification of your new address. As a member of the Class you will be represented by Class Counsel, who are listed below. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP Andrew J. Entwistle 500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel.: (512) 710-5960 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Trig Smith 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel.: (619) 231-1058 If you would like to remain part of the Class but be represented separately, you may hire your own attorney at your expense. If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment of the Court in this Action; however, you will not be eligible to receive a share of any funds which might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than May 17, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Further information regarding this matter may be obtained by writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMAZON.COM INC: Johnson Sues Over Disclosure of Sensitive Info -------------------------------------------------------------- SOFAUNA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00424 (W.D. Wash., March 27, 2024) arises from Defendant's unlawful data collection and sharing practices of highly specific and sensitive information about consumers' video consumption habits without their consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, Amazon Services disclosed Plaintiff's sensitive information to third-party, Amazon Inc., by providing Amazon Inc. with direct access to Amazon Service's database with information on Plaintiff Johnson, including access to Plaintiff Johnson's data, including the titles of videos watched, playback start dates and times, playback end dates and times, whether it was a purchase or rental history, billing address, Internet service provider information, and location information. Amazon Services also disclosed Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information to other non-Amazon affiliated third parties for audience measurement purposes and market research without explicit written consent, says the suit. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon.com Services LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon Inc., Amazon Services provides video services to United States Amazon Prime Video consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 837-4717 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1300 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: bscott@bursor.com AMAZON.COM INC: Order on Deposition Subpoena Entered in Mahone Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE and BRANDON TOLE, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman order on LCR 37 joint submission regarding deposition subpoena: (1) Plaintiffs' counsel, Gary Stonebarger, must sit for a deposition and answer questions as to how he prepared the summations of data contained in his two declarations; (2) the deposition must occur by April 5, 2024 and it may occur by videoconference; (3) local counsel for Plaintiffs must be present during the deposition; (4) the Parties must work the Court's law clerk, Ian Mensher, to ensure the Court is available on the day of the deposition; and (5) the Parties must file a copy of the complete deposition transcript as soon as it becomes available. The Court will otherwise withhold ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until it reviews the deposition transcript. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Y2Sk1 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Hartwig Case Due April 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skylar Hartwig, v. American Airlines Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00696-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order setting the following deadlines: -- Deadline for filing a Motion to Dismiss: April 12, 2024 -- Deadline for filing Plaintiff's FLSA Motion 30 days following for Conditional Certification: a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss -- Deadline for filing Plaintiffs Rule 23 45 days following Motion for Class Certification: a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss The court further orders that the parties meet and confer within 14 days following a ruling on either Plaintiff's FLSA Motion for Conditional Certification or Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification and submit a new proposed scheduling order. The Court additionally orders vacating the March 29, 2024 scheduling conference. The parties submitted a Rule 26(f) Case Management report on March 22, 2024. American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qoaIDw at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jones Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- RECO DESHUN JONES, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02195-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., March 27, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked as hourly-paid merchandisers for Defendant during the relevant statutory period. They routinely worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods. However, they were not paid for all their hours in excess of 40 per week at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods. Headquartered in Frisco, TX, The American Bottling Company manufactures, markets, and distributes beverages across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, 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 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com APPHARVEST INC: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of AppHarvest, Inc. securities (NASDAQ: APPH) and (NASDAQ: APPHW). SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of AppHarvest, Inc., during the period from February 1, 2021 and August 10, 2021, inclusive, and were injured thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Southern District of New York, that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Alan Narzissenfeld, ("Lead Plaintiff" or "Plaintiff") on behalf of himself and all members of the Settlement Class, and Jonathan Webb, ("Webb"), Loren Eggleton ("Eggleton"), and David Lee ("Lee" and collectively with Webb and Eggleton, the "Individual Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $4,850,000.00 (the "Settlement"). Plaintiff estimates this represents an average recovery of $0.14 per share of AppHarvest common stock and $0.07 per warrant, respectively, before attorneys' fees and expenses, based on the estimated number of allegedly damaged shares of AppHarvest securities held through an alleged corrective disclosure that was statistically significant. In exchange for the Settlement and the release of the Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, the Individual Defendants have agreed to create a $4,850,000 cash fund, which may accrue interest, to be distributed, after deduction of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other fees or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms and are found to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund ("Authorized Claimants"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Lewis J. Liman, on June 12, 2024 at 3:00 p.m., in Courtroom 15C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, consider: (i) whether the Settlement should be approved; (ii) whether the proposed plan for allocating the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Plan of Allocation") to Settlement Class Members should be approved; and (iii) Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses. This Notice describes important rights you may have and what steps you must take if you wish to participate in the Settlement, wish to object, or wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via videoconference, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. A full Notice and Claim Form can be obtained by visiting the website of the Claims Administrator, www.strategicclaims.net/apph/, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: In re AppHarvest Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street., Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Toll-free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 Email: info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP Gregory M. Potrepka 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: 203-992-4523 Email: gpotrepka@zlk.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 22, 2024 to the Claims Administrator at the address above. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is post-marked if by mail, or e-mailed, no later than May 22, 2024 to the Claims Administrator. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than May 22, 2024. Settlement Class Members who exclude themselves from the Settlement will not be able to object to the Settlement. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: MARCH 6, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Levine Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ LOUIS LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04284 (D.N.J., March 27, 2024) arises from the Defendant's anticompetitive conduct in the smartphone market in violation of the Sherman Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Apple reduces competition in the markets for performance smartphones and smartphones generally by delaying, degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would increase competition in the smartphone markets. The Plaintiff claims that Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual restrictions that it selectively enforces through its control of app distribution and its "app review" process, as well as by denying access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone's operating system. Apple's anticompetitive acts include its contractual restrictions against app creation, distribution, and access to Application Programming Interface that have impeded apps and technologies including super apps, cloud streaming, messaging, wearables, and digital wallets, says the Plaintiff. Apple is a global technology company with headquarters in Cupertino, CA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 297-1484 E-mail: aheo@barrack.com - and - Gerald J. Rodos, Esq. Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: grodos@barrack.com dbacine@barrack.com - and - William J. Ban, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Eleven Times Square 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 Facsimile: (212) 688-0783 E-mail: wban@barrack.com APPLE INC: Ultra Home Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------- ULTRA HOME SET, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04223 (D.N.J., March 26, 2024) seeks to address Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and alleviate harm to competition and consumers in the smartphone market in violation of the Sherman Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Apple reduces competition in the markets for performance smartphones and smartphones generally by delaying, degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would increase competition in the smartphone markets by decreasing barriers to switching to another smartphone. Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual restrictions that it selectively enforces through its control of app distribution and its "app review" process, as well as by denying access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone's operating system (Application Programming Interfaces), says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further seeks to vindicate the interests of the millions of consumers who have overpaid for iPhones they purchased from Apple, missed out on the innovation and improved user experiences that competition would have made possible, and face ongoing harm of Apple's monopolistic conduct in the performance smartphone and smartphone markets. Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple manufactures smartphones, computers, tablets, and related services and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Morgan T. Hunt, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, P.C 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us morganhunt-mackey@robertslawfirm.us AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Tonya Riley, writing for bloomberglaw.com, reports that AT&T Inc. was sued for allegedly exposing approximately 73 million current and former users to privacy-related injuries as result of a recent data breach. AT&T recklessly "maintained, used, and shared" customers' personally identifiable information and "intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently" failed to take measures to secure its system despite knowing it was in a condition that made consumers' sensitive data vulnerable, according to the purported class action filed March 30 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. AT&T said in a statement that data from about 7.6 million current account holders and 65.4 million former account holder had been leaked in hacker forums. The statement didn't reveal the cause of the breach. Plaintiff Alex Petroski, an Ohio citizen, claims that because of AT&T's negligence he and other breach victims will endure lifelong costs associated with their sensitive data being exposed online, including the cost of identity fraud-protection services. The complaint was brought in Dallas where AT&T is headquartered. In addition to monetary damages, the complaint seeks an order requiring AT&T to cover out-of-pocket expenses related to identity theft-prevention and to implement new data-security measures such as full encryption and an outside audit. The complaint also accuses AT&T of of failing to properly implement data safeguards suggested by the US Federal Trade Commission, including failing to minimize the time PII is stored and limiting access to sensitive data. Petroski is represented by Kendall Law Group, PLLC, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, and Hausfeld LLP. The defense hasn't yet entered an appearance. The case is Petroski v. AT&T Inc., N.D. Tex., No. 3:24-cv-00757, complaint filed 3/30/24. [GN] AUSTRALIA: NFF Decries Latest Move In Cattle Export Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shan Goodwin, writing for The North West Star, reports that claimants in the long-running class action over the unlawful closure of the live cattle export trade in 2011 say they will make no compromises from here. They plan to decline the Commonwealth's request for additional time to analyse the method they have put forward for calculating damages, saying it is just another attempt to delay the payment of due compensation. The matter will head back to the courts in April. At the same time, the claimants say they are still waiting for an explanation legally due for the Commonwealth's decision to reject their latest offer to settle. In January, the Commonwealth turned down their offer to accept $510 million, plus costs and interest, to break the legal deadlock. A Federal Court ruling declared the 2011 Gillard Government suspension of the trade to Indonesia invalid and ordered compensation be paid to those whose livelihoods were devastated by the decision. Four years of court proceedings have so far failed to see agreement on an amount to be paid. To now request more delays to assess a formula that had been argued in the courts for years was cruel and unnecessary, spokesperson for the class action claimants Will Evans, from the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, said. The group of 215 parties to the class action includes cattle producers, exporters and service providers such as veterinarians and musterers. "The Commonwealth's strategy is clearly to drag this out as long as possible and that is brutal," Mr Evans said. "But there will not be another offer from us. We'll spend another 20 years in court if need be but we are not compromising from here. Attempts to lowball us won't work. "What about this case does the Commonwealth have left to learn -- it's been more than a decade. "This court case is now being taught to university students as a rare case where malfeasance against a minister was proven. It's a precedent-setting case." National Farmers' Federation president David Jochinke described the Commonwealth request for a delay in proceedings as a bitter blow. "I was in the Territory when this news broke, and I've seen how visibly angry and upset this has made people," he said. "There is no reason for this delay besides petty politics. The Federal Government is making it clear once again that justice for the people who had their livelihoods destroyed isn't a priority. They simply don't care." The NFF has accused the government of "disgracing itself by deceitful delaying tactics and shirking the responsibility to fairly compensate cattle producers." Agriculture Minister Murray Watt has continually defended the Commonwealth's behaviour in the matter, pointing out the Federal Court judge had criticised figures put forward by lawyers for the class action around how many extra head of cattle might have gone to Indonesia had the closure not occurred. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMAD FARSHAD ABDOLLAH NIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ("BANA"), a National Banking Association, Case No. 3:21-cv-01799-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order: -- Denying Plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment and class certification without prejudice; -- Granting in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's claims under ECOA's discrimination cause of action, under Section 1981, under the Unruh Act, and under several prongs of the UCL; -- Denying in part, without prejudice, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as it relates to the Plaintiff's claim under ECOA's notice provision and all related claims under the UCL; and -- Denying as moot each party's motion to exclude the other's expert witness, because the Court grants summary judgment in favor of BANA as to all claims related to BANA's CRM policy. The Court relied on neither expert's opinions in reaching its conclusions and each expert's testimony was confined to the legitimacy of BANA's practices and policies to comply with the economic and trade sanctions regulatory regime. As such, they are irrelevant to the remaining claims in the action and moot. The Court orders parties to contact the Magistrate Judge's chambers within fourteen days of today's date to coordinate future scheduling and any potential for settlement. The Court further orders Plaintiff to, within 30 days of this order, either renew his motion for class certification or give notice that he does not wish to pursue this case further as a class action. The Plaintiff, a citizen of Iran, currently resident in California, brought this suit alleging various federal and state-law claims against BANA—principally for discrimination. Near the end of 2015, he opened a credit account with BANA. The Plaintiff continued to use this credit card account until October 2019 when BANA froze and then closed the account. Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNBdIS at no extra charge.[CC] BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 16 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camille Cabrera v. Bayer Healthcare LLC et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-08525-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt entered an order setting pretrial deadlines: Apr. 8, 2024 Deadline to file Motion for Leave to Amend Apr. 29, 2024 Deadline to file Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Sept. 16, 2024 Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification Oct. 15, 2024 Deadline to file Opposition to Motion for Class Certification Oct. 28, 2024 Deadline to file Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification Nov. 18, 2024 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Jan. 15, 2025 Last day to participate in a settlement conference/mediation Jan. 17, 2025 Last day to file notice of settlement / joint report re settlement Apr. 14, 2025 Expert Discovery Cut-Off Apr. 14, 2025 Last day to file All Motions (including discovery motions) Bayer discovers and manufactures healthcare and medical products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0X9iz at no extra charge.[CC] BEST BUY: Willis Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers ------------------------------------------------------------- WANETA WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-01066 (D. Minn., March 26, 2024) asserts claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, breach of express warranties, and for violations of the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act in connection with the sale of defective or unsafe pressure cookers. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated consumers who purchased 6-quart and/or 8-quart Insignia Multi-Function Pressure Cooker with model numbers NS-MC60SS8, NS-MC60SS9, NS-MC60SS9-C, NS-MC80SS9 and NS-MC80SS9-C, and/or who purchased the inner cooker pots with model numbers NS-MCRP6NS9 and NS-MCRP6SS9 for personal or household use and not for resale during the period October 2017 through June 2023. The Plaintiff participated in the pressure cookers recall, submitting her request for a replacement inner pot and other repair parts in or about January 2024. In or about March 2024, Plaintiff received her replacement inner pot and repair parts from Defendant, and indeed the replacement pot Defendant provided holds less than the pot she originally purchased, says the suit. Headquartered in South Richfield, MN, Best Buy designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells consumer electronics and kitchen products nationwide, including the Insignia Multi-Function Pressure Cooker. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD: Bid to Dismiss Paul Class Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUG PAUL and ALEXANDER BEKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 5:23-cv-00354-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered an order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and to strike. The Court said that the Plaintiffs' claims may proceed. The Plaintiffs are directed to file within 14 days of the date of this order an amended complaint naming the state plan as a defendant as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and amending the title of that claim to reflect the court's construction, and to serve process on the state plan in accordance with Rule 4. The Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action July 27, 2023, arising out of Defendant's denial of coverage for Plaintiffs' claims for medical treatment under their group healthcare plans and Defendant's policy. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), for breach of contract, for breach of fiduciary duty, and under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"). The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and all putative class members who have also been denied coverage for the same type of medical treatment under that policy. The Plaintiffs seek damages, individually and for the putative class, to recover benefits due to them under the terms of their plans, and injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief along with attorneys' fees. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C4hr5k at no extra charge.[CC] BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Class Action Over Overstated Drug Prospects --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUE) common stock between April 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023. Bluebird is a biotechnology company that researches, develops, and commercializes gene therapies for severe genetic diseases. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that bluebird bio, Inc. (BLUE) Overstated the Clinical and/or Commercial Prospects of its Drug According to the complaint, on April 24, 2023, defendants announced submission of its Biologics License Application (BLA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) ages 12 and older who have a history of vaso-occlusive events (VOEs). The BLA also included a request for priority review, which, if granted, would shorten the FDA's review of the application to six months from the time of filing, versus a standard review timeline of 10 months. On December 8, 2023, Bluebird issued a press release announcing that it received approval from the FDA for its ex-vivo gene therapy drug Lyfgenia for sickle cell disease. Along with the approval came a black box warning for haematological malignancies with a requirement to monitor patients for cancer through complete blood counts at least every six months for at least 15 years, plus viral vector integration site analysis at month 6, 12 and as warranted. Further, the Company's anticipated priority review voucher was denied by the FDA. On this news, the price of Bluebird's common stock declined from a closing market price of $4.81 per share on December 7, 2023, to $2.86 per share on December 8, 2023. Plaintiffs allege that defendants created the false impression that: (i) they could obtain FDA approval for lovo-cel without any box warnings for haematological malignancies; (ii) they would be granted a priority review voucher by the FDA and in turn sell it in order to strengthen their financial position for the lovo-cel launch; and (iii) as a result, the Company had significantly overstated Lyfgenia's clinical and/or commercial prospects. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against bluebird bio, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by May 28, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] BURNETT MEDICAL: Bid & Brief To Decertify Classes Due Jan. 24, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINAE HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BURNETT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00063-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Amendments to the Pleadings: May 10, 2024 2. Motion for Preliminary Class Aug. 16, 2024 Certification: 3. Motion & Brief To Decertify Classes: Jan. 24, 2025 4. Deadline for Filing Dispositive July 25, 2025 Motions: 5. Settlement Letters: Nov. 14, 2025 6. Discovery Cutoff: Nov. 21, 2025 Burnett is a hospital that offers primary care, cardiology, testing, emergency care, surgery and healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ib6K0V at no extra charge.[CC] CADENCE BANK: Fails to Protect Private Info, Triplett Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LATRICE TRIPLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CADENCE BANK and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10657 (D. Mass., March 15, 2024) arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated the highly-sensitive consumer data of Plaintiff and Class Members, via a security vulnerability in PSC's software program, MOVEit, which is used by Cadence Bank to transfer files as part of its normal business. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their failure to reasonably and adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, a class of Private Information which is particularly valuable to identity thieves. The Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private Information, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants, seeking redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii) unjust enrichment; (iv) bailment; and (v) breach of fiduciary duty. Through these claims, Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief, including improvements to Defendants' data security systems, policies, and practices, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendants. Cadence Bank is a regional banking franchise based in Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Rotman, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP One Marina Park Drive, Suite 14010 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 207-0600 Facsimile: (617) 830-8312 E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. B. Annabelle Emuze, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com aemuze@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com CALIFORNIA PAK: Figueroa Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PAK, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-004091 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 25, 2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted CAL PAK and violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. California Pak, LLC produces luggage, backpacks, duffels and other 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) 709-5774 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com CBR SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Umbilical Cord Blood Banking Services ------------------------------------------------------------------ ClassAction.org reports that a new proposed class action lawsuit accuses CBR Systems of charging families thousands for umbilical cord blood banking services that are "largely worthless" as far as their advertised purpose while diverting much-needed cord blood units away from public banks. The 26-page CBR Systems lawsuit says that although the company aggressively markets its services as a potentially life-saving treatment option for children, CBR does not relay to expectant parents that the odds a child could ever use their own cord blood or tissue to treat a medical condition are "virtually zero," or that the "vast majority" of cord blood treatments have not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Though CBR Systems claims in particular that stem cells within a newborn's umbilical cord blood and tissue can be used later to treat 80 serious conditions the child or a sibling might develop, the FDA has approved the use of a child's own cord blood for the treatment of only seven medical conditions, including certain kinds of leukemia and lymphoma, the complaint relays. The case notes that a child's own cord blood "most often contains the same defects that caused the medical condition for which treatment is sought" and that, in most cases, a child would require stem cell donation from a public source. Moreover, despite CBR's representations, the use of a child's cord blood for treatment of a sibling's medical condition is "still incredibly rare," the case adds. According to the complaint, CBR has admitted that, of the more than one million cord blood units it has stored, only around 700 families have ever used their child's cord blood for any type of treatment. The suit also alleges CBR does not reasonably disclose that the "vast majority" of cord-blood transplants stem from public banks or that there may not be enough stem cells in a newborn's cord blood to be viable in a future medical treatment. Despite the foregoing, CBR sells parents storage of stem cells and tissue for up to 18 years or longer while knowing that the cells collected at a child's birth will "be inadequate for any form of treatment at all." "Unsurprisingly, CBR does not reasonably disclose this information to expectant parents," the lawsuit says. Additionally, CBR downplays the chances that a child may find a stem cell match through public cord blood banks or other sources, the filing alleges, accusing the defendant of diverting hundreds of thousands of cord blood units away from public banks to its own facilities, "where misinformed parents pay a premium to store cord blood that will almost certainly sit dormant until it is discarded." The case, citing an article from the peer-reviewed journal Bone Marrow Transplantation, states that around the world there are "six times as many cord-blood units stored in private cord-blood banks than in public banks." "This does not appear to bother CBR, which has lined its pockets by diverting over 1 million units of cord blood away from public banks," the suit scathes. According to the lawsuit, recent statistics suggest that global cord-blood reserves could have increased by 125 percent had the units given to CBR instead been donated to public banks. The case looks to cover all consumers in the United States who, on or after July 6, 2020, contracted with CBR systems for private cord blood banking and have not used their child's banked cord blood or tissue for any medical purpose. [GN] CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Pomalidomide Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW YORK HOTEL TRADES COUNCIL & HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, INC., HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELGENE CORPORATION, BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ANTHONY INSOGNA, and JEROME ZELDIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02230 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024) alleges that pharmaceutical giants Bristol Myers and Celgene unlawfully extended, and continue to extend, a monopoly in the market for pomalidomide, a blockbuster drug used in the treatment of multiple myeloma and sold under the brand name Pomalyst. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the federal Sherman Act and State law. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, interest, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and members of the class resulting from Celgene's monopolization and from all the Defendants' conspiracy to restrain trade in the United States market for Pomalyst and its generic equivalents. Headquartered in New Jersey, Celgene Corporation is a pharmaceutical company. In 2019, Celgene Corporation was acquired by, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of, Bristol Myers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Kathryn A. Hettler, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com kh@hrsclaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Claudia Morera, Esq. Sophia Weaver, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com kristenj@hbsslaw.com whitneyst@hbsslaw.com claudiam@hbsslaw.com sophiaw@hbsslaw.com - and - James R. Dugan II, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. TerriAnne Benedetto, Esq. Glenn E. Mintzer, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, LLC One Canal Place, Suite 1000 365 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com tbenedetto@dugan-lawfirm.com gmintzer@dugan-lawfirm.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Therapy My Way Sues Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- THERAPY MY WAY and THOMAS FRANCO THERAPY AND CONSULTING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC. and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00345 (M.D. Tenn., March 26, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to maintain the security of their computer networks in accordance with state and federal law. Due to Defendants' negligence, failures, and omissions, a well-known group of cybercriminals, called ALPHV/Blackcat that have been known for some time to target healthcare organizations, was able to infiltrate Defendants' computers networks and steal for ransom confidential health data and source code, among other things. Beginning on or around February 21, 2024, when Defendants' systems were shutdown because of the data breach, Plaintiff Therapy My Way (TMW) could no longer submit claims through Therapy Notes and obtain payments for those claims. Since the shutdown, the Plaintiff TMW has not been paid for any claims despite continuing to treat patients, says the suit. Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare Inc. is a publicly-traded healthcare technology company that offers healthcare providers such as doctors, hospitals, therapists, pharmacies, laboratories, and clinics services and support in key areas such as provider claim processing, pharmacy claim transactions, verification of insurance, disbursement of provider payments, and authorizations and medical necessity reviews. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Spragens, Esq. SPRAGENS LAW PLC 311 22nd Ave. N. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 983-8900 Facsimile: (615) 682-8533 E-mail: john@spragenslaw.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com dmb@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com CHEMOURS COMPANY: Masel Sues Over Securities Laws' Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- TODD MASEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, MARK E. NEWMAN, SAMEER RALHAN, and JONATHAN LOCK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00377-UNA (D. Del., March 25, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Chemours securities between April 28, 2023 and February 28, 2024, inclusive. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that The Chemours Company maintained weak internal controls and Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Headquartered in Wilmington, DE, The Chemours Company is a global provider of performance chemicals that are key inputs in end-products and processes in a variety of industries. Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CC." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com CIGNA HEALTH: RJ Appeals Denial of Bid to Renew Class Cert. Motion ------------------------------------------------------------------ RJ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their administrative motion to file renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled RJ, as the representative of her beneficiary son; DS, an individual, and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs challenge Cigna's alleged failure to reimburse covered mental health provider claims at the usual, customary, and reasonable ("UCR") rates. On April 2, 2020, RJ filed the original complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which the Court partially granted on March 23, 2021. It dismissed with prejudice the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Section 502(c) claim for failure to provide plan materials and the ERISA Section 502(a)(3) claim for failure to provide a full and fair review. It also dismissed the following claims with leave to amend: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim (Count I); claim for equitable relief to enjoin acts (Count VII), and "claim for other appropriate equitable relief" (Count VIII). Finally, the Court allowed RJ's ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) claims for underpayment of plan benefits (Counts II and III), and alternative claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) for violation of fiduciary duties (Count V) to proceed. On April 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC). They assert the following claims: (1) violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) against both Defendants; (2) RICO conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) against both Defendants; (3) underpayment of benefits in violation of ERISA against Cigna; (4) breach of plan provisions in violation of ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) against Cigna; (5) violation of fiduciary duties of loyalty and duty of care under ERISA and a request for declaratory and injunctive relief against Cigna; and (6) violation of fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care and request for declaratory and injunctive relief against MultiPlan. The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC, which the Court granted in part and denied in part through an Order entered by Judge Edward J. Davila on Sept. 2, 2022. On Jan. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and an administrative motion to file under seal, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 27, 2023. The Defendants filed a joint administrative motion to file under seal and the Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal regarding class certification briefing on Dec. 29, 2023, and Jan. 2, 2024, respectively. On Jan. 22, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties' renewed sealing motions regarding class certification briefing through an Order entered by Judge Davila. The Court, having fully reviewed and considered all papers and arguments submitted regarding the Plaintiffs' notion, found that a renewed motion for class certification is not warranted. As discussed at oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and in the Court's Class Certification Order, "every court asked to certify a class based on alleged ERISA Sec. 502(a)(1)(B) violations of UCR obligations has consistently denied certification." The Plaintiffs have not shown an intervening change in controlling law, emergence of new material facts, or clear error in the Court's order denying class certification, and the Court found that the Plaintiffs have not established any other basis justifying a renewed class certification motion. Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' administrative motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned RJ, et al. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 24-1028, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners RJ, as the representative of her beneficiary son, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. are represented by: Matthew M. Lavin, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 677-4030 Facsimile: (202) 677-4031 E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com - and - David M. Lilienstein, Esq. Katie J. Spielman, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 678-5050 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com katie@dllawgroup.com CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Mai Sues Over Tire Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- PHUONG VIET MAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN SCA; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC.; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01984 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2024) arises out of a conspiracy among Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks and buses (as opposed to original equipment tires that are specified by vehicle manufacturers and fitted onto new vehicles; collectively, "Replacement Tires") sold in the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conspiracy to fix prices for Replacement Tires was motivated by a sharp decrease in demand for Replacement Tires during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning no later than January 1, 2020, and continuing until the effects of their anticompetitive conduct have ceased, Defendants effectuated their price fixing conspiracy by, among other means, signaling price increases during earnings calls and other public statements, implementing revenue management software to facilitate and exchange pricing information, participating in annual industry meetings and coordinating supply reductions to keep prices artificially high. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals who purchased Replacement Tires indirectly from Defendants at supracompetitive prices to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as is appropriate, based on Defendants' alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws. Continental Aktiengesellschaft is a tire manufacturer in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander W. Cogbill, Esq. ZELLE LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 876-4420 E-mail: acogbill@zellelaw.com - and - Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Qianwei Fu, Esq. Rose Burnam, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com qfu@zellelaw.com rburnam@zellelaw.com CORSAIR GAMING: Court Vacates April 18 Daubert Motions Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, CLINT SUNDEEN, and JOSEPH ALCANTARA, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00312-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order vacating April 18, 2024, hearing on Daubert motions and May 16, 2024 hearing on class certification: 1. The April 18, 2024, hearing on Corsair's motions to exclude and the May 16, 2024 hearing on Plaintiffs' class certification motion and Corsair's motion to strike are vacated while the Parties work to finalize a settlement agreement; and 2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for preliminary approval on May 14, 2024. On March 22, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Notice re Settlement informing the Court that the Parties had a successful mediation with Antonio Piazza and requesting to stay the scheduled April 18, 2024 hearing on Corsair's motions to exclude and the May 16, 2024 hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and Corsair's motion to strike while they work to finalize a settlement agreement. Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2OOCjx at no extra charge.[CC] D & C LOOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guzman Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- JOEL GUZMAN, Plaintiff v. D & C LOOP INC. (DBA SHINJUKU), and TENG HUANG, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02235 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Guzman was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher/cleaner from approximately July 28, 2023, until February 29, 2024. He worked approximately 60 to 66 hours per week. However, Plaintiff was not provided with a system or method to accurately record his working hours. In addition, he was not paid appropriate minimum and overtime wages from the beginning and until the end of his employment with Defendants, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in New York, NY, D & C Loop Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com D AND EAST: Court OKs Settlement in Mismanaged Apartments' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Wondra, writing for Ark Valley Voice, reports that the saga of a group of tenant apartments known as the D Street, East First, and F Street Apartments will go down in Salida history for several reasons. Not just because it was a neglected horror of buildings where bathtubs fell through floors, cockroaches crawled walls, and bedbugs were resistant to interventions. Not only because the heat didn't work, and raw sewage poured into the basement. Not just because children's health deteriorated from ailments from skin infections to asthma caused by walls covered in black mold. Now, the final chapter has been written, and it appears there is soon-to-be justice for the victims of this place that no sane person would want to call home. This past week, a proposed order approved the settlement of the class action lawsuit against defendants John G. Mehos, et al. The settlement applies to the tenants of 102 D Street, 233 East First Street and 117-1/2 F Street. It has taken seven years of legal efforts to push forward a premises liability and breach of contract case that was initially filed in 2018. "I want to express that throughout these years, the clients really expressed admirable patience and fortitude to see this through. I can't thank them enough," said Attorney Matthew (Matt) Hobbs of the seven-year battle. "It's individuals like these who don't have a voice to speak out against power. We fought for their voice." From its beginnings in 2017, the case was handled by Salida Attorney Matthew Hobbs. Coming in a few years later was co-counsel law firm Cain & Skarnulis with offices in Austin, Texas, and Salida, Colorado. Ark Valley Voice has obtained copies of the documents that grant a $1 million settlement to the tenants of the buildings who endured not just substandard conditions but threats and intimidation. The order is Court-stamped, meaning the court agreed to everything described in the settlement documents. One of the buildings (D Street) had sat empty since 2017 when it was deemed uninhabitable by the Chaffee County Building Department and Salida Police Department. Two sister buildings (on East First and F Streets) were occupied for a while, before the city acquired the East First and D Street sites in May, 2022. The structures were demolished in August 2023, potentially making room for a significant amount of workforce housing within walking distance of the downtown Historic and Creative Districts. The F Street building has been vacant for nearly two years, its entryway secured against admittance, and its future fate unknown. Justice for the Victims It's taken longer than the two buildings' demolition to get justice for the victims. Hobbs explained, "We got an economic damage expert that placed their damages at upwards of $3 million. There were policy limits on their insurance policies and we got a fair settlement of $1 million. The conditions in those apartments were nightmarish. I toured them and have to say it took me a few days to get over what we saw there. It's rare that an insurance company wants to write a check for a million dollars, but that's what they are going to do." The proposed order granting settlements into the five figures for the former tenants is complex and lengthy. It breaks down the various amounts awarded to each tenant and the reasoning for those amounts. The distribution depends on various factors, including how long the individual tenants resided at the property, whether they had any minor children living with them at the time, and whether the individual member served as a class representative. There were three different "classes" of settlement set up by the court. The plan of distribution includes reimbursement to tenants for rent they paid, non-economic damages, the return of damage deposits, and additional compensation for class representatives. The settlements will be paid by General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, represented by QBE America's Inc. The first group of 30 tenants were living in the D Street Apartments on May 2, 2017, when they were shut down. The second group of about 12 tenants (the number impacted by the statute of limitations) called a security deposit class, consisted of those impacted when the landlord routinely refused to return security deposits to the tenants when they left the abysmal conditions. "Conditions were horrible," said Hobbs. "Nothing was fixed and the landlord wouldn't clean the apartments so when new tenants moved in they would have to come in and do their own cleaning. But all their security deposits would be retained when they moved out." The third group referenced as the breach of contract class, is a group of 29 tenants set up by the court to receive a refund of all rent payments that applied to the D Street, East First Street, and F Street apartments. "The plan of distribution was approved by the court, and a lot are getting life-changing amounts of money," said Hobbs. "What they endured was horrible; bed bugs, [in] one apartment the bathtub fell through the ceiling into another apartment. There was black mold everywhere, raw sewage in the basement. There was no heat, no water, and the tenants were threatened that if they didn't pay their rent, that DHS (Department of Human Services) would be called. It's individuals like these who don't have a voice to speak out against power that we fought for." A special negligence class was set up for the children of the families who endured these conditions. "The kiddos didn't pay rent, so they're not part of the economic damages subclass, but the kids who were living there as of May 2, 2017 will each receive $5,000," said Hobbs. "The court-ordered money will be put into what is known as a "unified transfer of minor account" to be held by the court until they turn 18." Hobbs commended the tenant families for their patience and fortitude in pursuing legal action. "This has dragged out since 2017 and the case was filed in 2018, so it's been on my desk for years. All those individuals have pretty unique stories. Since having been removed from those buildings, some have suffered chronic homelessness, a couple have been able to rebuild their lives, but all have horrific stories of landlord intimidation and threats that silenced them." Residual Fund to Stand up for Future Tenant Issues With an eye to the fact that these were low-income working families, the settlement includes a residual fund for leftover case proceeds that will be donated in equal parts to the Chaffee County Housing Trust and to the Colorado Lawyer Trust Account Foundation. "It's been a long story and I'm glad the final chapter will be written," concluded Hobbs. "Hopefully it sends a message to other landlords that you can't treat tenants like this even if they are voiceless and powerless." The Mehos family members included brothers John Mehos, Dr. William Mehos, Mark Mehos (representing the estate of William Mehos),and Constantine Mehos. They owned these buildings outright (with Dr. Mehos listed as an owner on the D and East First Street Apartments, but not the F Street location). "The Mehos were a prominent family. None of these buildings had a penny of debt … not a dime of debt. I don't have a clue what they were doing with this money," said Hobbs. "When I deposed Mehos he said ‘This was my brother's deal, I had nothing to do with it'. ‘Well', I said, ‘your name's on the deeds. Your liability is there'". "It's individuals like these who don't have a voice to speak out against power. What matters is how you treat people who have no power," added Hobbs, speaking about the seven-year battle to win justice for his clients. "They wouldn't have been getting away with this if it were doctors, or journalists, or other professions." [GN] DAS ACQUISITION: Nash et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ RODERICK NASH, TERESA HILL, STEPHANIE TURNER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAS ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00473-PLC (E.D. Mo., March 27, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state statutes and common law by systematically applying unlawful pay practice to all hourly, non-exempt employees. According to the complaint, DAS did not pay Plaintiffs and other mortgage loan originator employees for all their work hours including overtime compensation despite the fact that they routinely worked over eight hours per day and more than 40 hours per week. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, DAS Acquisition Company LLC d/b/a USA Mortgage is a Missouri limited liability company that provides real estate-related capital and loans. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tracey F. George, Esq. DAVIS GEORGE LLC 1600 Genessee St., Suite 328 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 569-2629 ext. 2 Facsimile: (816) 447-3939 E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com www.dgmlawyers.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com www.rmlegalgroup.com DECKERS CONSUMER: Faces Monegan Suit Over Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLYNNE MONEGAN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECKERS CONSUMER DIRECT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02412 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2024) arises from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado's Minimum Wage Act, and common law. The Defendant classified Plaintiff Monegan and its other hourly employees as non-exempt and tasked them with the primary job duty of providing customer service to customers of Defendant's portfolio of brands. Allegedly, the Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its hourly employees for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts, when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in hourly employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours. Headquartered in Goleta, CA, Deckers designs, markets, and distributes footwear, apparel, and accessories developed for both everyday casual lifestyle uses and high-performance activities. Its portfolio of brands includes UGG, Koolaburra, HOKA, Teva and SanuK. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park E #860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 579-0600 E-mail: Kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (249) 746-4001 E-mail: Akarbal@sommerspc.com DELTA COUNTY, TX: Bid for Class Cert. Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ANDRE TAYLOR II & TITUS WILEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA COUNTY, FORMER SHERIFF RICKY SMITH, SHERIFF CHARLA SINGLETON, COUNTY ATTORNEY JAY GARRETT, COUNTY JUDGE JASON MURRAY, and ZACH WILLIAMSON, Case No. 4:22-cv-00250-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification. After additional discovery, Plaintiffs may refile this motion. The Plaintiffs allege that from Oct. 2, 2019, to Nov. 8, 2019 (the "Aggrieved Time Period"), the Defendant Williamson operated as an employee of Delta County, "conduct[ing] traffic stops, issu[ing] citations, and ma[king] arrests without lawful authority." The Plaintiffs contend that the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (“TCOLE”) rejected the Defendant Williamson's appointment as a Peace Officer in Delta County twice—once on Oct. 2, 2019, and once on Oct. 24, 2019—because he did not possess an active Peace Officer license. The Plaintiff Patrick Andre Taylor II filed this action individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, on Oct. 15, 2021, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. On January 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Opposed Motion for Class Certification. In it, the Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes: (1) "[a]ll persons issued citations by the Defendant Williamson while he operated unlawfully as a Delta County Sheriff's Deputy" (the "First Requested Class"), and (2) "[a]ll persons arrested or detained and issued criminal charges by the Defendant Williamson while he operated unlawfully as a Delta County Sheriff's Deputy." On Jan. 9, 2024, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing as to the numerosity and superiority requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Delta County is a county in the Upper Peninsula in the U.S. state of Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ADnXb0 at no extra charge.[CC] DOCTORS BEST: Court Enters Order Closing Casey Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sharae Casey v. Doctors Best, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01325-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton, entered an order closing Casey case. In light of the Court's granting of Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification; final approval of class action settlement; award of incentive payment; and award of attorney fees costs, and expenses, this case is administratively closed. Doctor's Best manufactures and distributes dietary and nutritional supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yBxkpE at no extra charge.[CC] DOXIMITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Doximity, Inc. (NYSE: DOCS) resulting from allegations that Doximity may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Doximity securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18273 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 1, 2024, during market hours, Jehosaphat Research released a report on Doximity. In this report, Jehosaphat stated that "[w]e believe this healthcare advertising business is coming under pressure due to a variety of fundamental issues, which we've investigated via forensic accounting analysis, interviews with former employees and digital marketing agencies, [. . . ] and other means." Further, Jehosaphat stated that it believed Doximity's underlying sales had been declining, "but that this decline has been masked through accelerated revenue recognition." On this news, the price of Doximity stock fell in intraday trading on April 1, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Court OKs Request to Transfer Deceptive Ads' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Welman, writing for SBCAmericas, reports that the class action lawsuit filed by DraftKings patrons in Massachusetts is heading for a venue change. Last week, the Massachusetts Superior Court of Middlesex County granted DraftKings's request to transfer the case to the state's Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court (BLS). The plaintiffs, working with the Public Health Advocacy Institute, filed the class action in December, alleging that the $1,000 sign-up offer from DraftKings was deceptive. The BLS is specifically designed to handle legal business disputes using two-judge teams from the Superior Court to weigh in on cases. This case has been delegated to the team of Judge Debra Squires-Lee and Judge Kenneth Salinger. DraftKings argued for the transfer was appropriate because the class action relates to alleged unfair business practices and that is a case that would require "close case management" and benefit from the close oversight of BLS. The sportsbook also made it clear it intends to file a motion to dismiss once it is in the care of BLS. The transfer comes over the objections of plaintiffs Melissa Scanlon and Shane Harris. In a filing objecting to the move, the pair argued that the Middlesex Superior Court was more than qualified to handle matters of consumer protections and deceptive advertising. Additionally, the motion argued that Scanlon specifically chose Middlesex County where she resides, so to move the court over to BLS, which is in Suffolk County, moves the case into the defendant's home turf. Finally, the plaintiffs argued that there was not going to be an onerous amount of discovery in the case that the argument that the Middlesex County court lacked the resources to hear it lacked merit. At the heart of the case is the sign-up offer, which claimed to give users $1,000 in bet credits. Scanlon and Harris argued that the offer failed to properly foreground the fine print of the offer, which included the fact users needed to deposit $5,000 in order to get the full $1,000 offer and that those $1,000 of credits would not be released without betting at least $25,000 on the app. [GN] EQUIFAX INFO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Torres ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O., Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher C. Conner entered an order that: 1. Equifax's motion for summary judgment is granted. 2. Dr. Torres's motions for class certification and to strike the declaration of Marsha Tiaranai, as well as Equifax's motions to exclude expert testimony are dismissed as moot. 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment on behalf of Equifax and against Dr. Torres. 4. The Clerk of Court shall thereafter close this case. Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fNszxb at no extra charge.[CC] EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Equinix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EQIX) resulting from allegations that Equinix may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Equinix securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23498 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 20, 2024, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research released a report entitled "Equinix Exposed: Major Accounting Manipulation, Core Business Decay And Selling an AI Pipe Dream As Insiders Cashed Out Hundreds of Millions." In part, Hindenburg stated its "investigation, which included a review of financial and litigation records and interviews with 37 former Equinix employees, industry experts and competitors, revealed that Equinix manipulates its accounting for AFFO ("adjusted funds from operations"), the key profitability metric for REITs ["(Real Estate Investment Trust")]. We estimate this metric was overstated by at least 22% in 2023 alone." On this news, Equinix's stock fell $19.70 per share, or 2.3%, to close at $824.88 per share on March 20, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Landman Sues Over Misleading Driving Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leah Landman, Plaintiff v. General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02238 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the New York General Business Law, and the New York Civil Rights Law. Plaintiff Landman brings this action for herself and on behalf of all persons who had their driving data collected and shared by Defendants without their knowledge and/or consent. She seeks to challenge the actions of Defendants regarding erroneous reports of derogatory and negative driving information made without Plaintiff's knowledge and/or consent, and the illegal transfer and publication of same. Allegedly, the uncontextualized, misleading, and personal driving information on her consumer disclosure harmed her car insurance by significantly raising her insurance premiums, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Detroit, MI, General Motors is a multinational automotive manufacturing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. Lili D. Lowell, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 S.E. 3rd Ave. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com Scott@schlesingerlaw.com JGdanski@schlesingerlaw.com Lowell@schlesingerlaw.com GEORGE WASHINGTON: Sued Over Unregistered Foreign Agent Activities ------------------------------------------------------------------ DR. FARID HAFEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DR. LORENZO VIDINO, individually and in his respective corporate capacities, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, THE PROGRAM ON EXTREMISM AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ALP SERVICES, S.A. DILIGENCE SARL, MARIO BRERO, MURIEL CAVIN, LIONEL BADAL, ARIAF STUDIES AND RESEARCH LLC and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873 (D.D.C., March 27, 2024) arises from Defendants' illicit undisclosed unregistered foreign agent activities which included branding anyone whom the United Arab Emirates perceived to be pro-Islamic as terrorists or extremists with ties to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as for mail and wire fraud and money laundering. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements to the press, on Wikipedia and elsewhere online, and to the world's top financial risk compliance monitors as part of an overarching scheme to "destroy" their targets' businesses and reputations by defrauding banks, their targets' business partners, government decision makers, and the public. In addition, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants unlawfully obtained his phone records and used those phone records to map out purported network of associates. Based in Washington, DC, the George Washington University is a private, 501(c)(3) non-profit university chartered in 1821. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Schwartz, Esq. AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C. 546 Fifth Avenue, 6th Flr. New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 641-0499 E-mail: dschwartz@aidalalaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Destroy Private Browsing Data to Settle Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julia Shapero, writing for The Hill, reports that Google has agreed to destroy "billions of data records" collected during private browsing sessions to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the tech giant of improperly tracking people who thought they were browsing the internet privately. The company also agreed to rewrite the disclosure that appears at the beginning of every "incognito mode" session to inform users that it collects data from private browsing sessions, according to court documents filed on April 1, 2024. Google must also allow incognito mode users to block third-party cookies for the next five years as part of the settlement. "This settlement is an historic step in requiring dominant technology companies to be honest in their representations to users about how the companies collect and employ user data, and to delete and remediate data collected," the filing, submitted by the plaintiffs' attorneys, reads. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda also touted the settlement, emphasizing that it does not require the company to make any payments. However, individuals still retain the right to sue for damages under the settlement. "We are pleased to settle this lawsuit, which we always believed was meritless," Castaneda said in a statement. "The plaintiffs originally wanted $5 billion and are receiving zero." "We never associate data with users when they use Incognito mode," he continued. "We are happy to delete old technical data that was never associated with an individual and was never used for any form of personalization." [GN] GT EXPRESS: Neisinger & Parker Sue Over Worker Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON NEISINGER and NATHANIAL PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GT EXPRESS, INC. and GHEORGHI TURCANU, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02397 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2024) challenges GT Express' unlawful practice of making deductions from delivery drivers' wages and requiring them to bear expenses which should have been properly borne by GT Express. Plaintiff Neisinger worked for GT Express in Illinois as a truck driver between approximately September 2023 and November 2023 and Plaintiff Parker also worked for GT Express in Illinois as a truck driver between approximately September 2023 and February 2024. The Plaintiffs were both classified as independent contractors. However, the behavior and financial control manifested over the drivers by GT Express demonstrates that they were employees of GT Express. Among other things, Plaintiffs Neisinger and Parker also contend that, as a result of the deductions and expenses they and other drivers were forced to incur, there were weeks in which the delivery drivers' pay fell below the Illinois and federal minimum wage. Headquartered in Mokena, IL, GT Express is an Illinois corporation that provides trucking services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimle: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com HBL BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges PurelyWhite Deluxe Tooth Whitening Kits are mislabeled and misrepresented as approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which does not issue clearance or approval for cosmetic, over-the-counter teeth-whitening products. The 25-page complaint says that although the packaging of the purportedly "dental grade" teeth whitening kits includes the FDA name and logo, these representations are false and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer into believing the agency "favor[s], endorse[s] or approve[s]" the products. The false advertising lawsuit highlights that the products, which utilize a whitening gel and LED light that supposedly accelerates the teeth-whitening process, are categorized as low-risk Class I medical devices that receive no FDA clearance or approval before being made available to consumers nationwide. Importantly, over-the-counter teeth whitening product are considered cosmetics and thus regulated by the FDA pursuant to the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, under which it is illegal to distribute any type of cosmetic that is misbranded due to false or misleading labeling, the suit relays. Further still, the FDA prohibits private companies, such as defendant HBL Beauty & Co., from using its name and logo on their product materials, the complaint shares. "Any cosmetic product that is misbranded is illegal to sell," the filing emphasizes. "Misbranded products thus have no economic value and are legally worthless." The lawsuit goes on to accuse the PurelyWhite Deluxe whitening kit manufacturer of falsely touting limited-time discounts online, namely by showing consumers "fake limited-time sales, fake regular prices, and fake discounts based on the fake regular prices." In reality, the PurelyWhite Deluxe teeth-whitening kits are "always on sale, and these sales persist," the suit says, alleging the company misleads consumers "into believing they are getting a good deal." "For example, Defendant has prominently displayed, since at least August 2020, the Products on sale for $49.99 on its website. This sale is designed to induce consumers to purchase its Products under the mistaken belief that they are getting a significant bargain because they are buying while the sale is going on." The case contends that proposed class members would not have bought the PurelyWhite Deluxe teeth-whitening kits had they known the products were not endorsed or approved by the FDA or that their supposed "sale" prices were false. The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought PurelyWhite Deluxe Tooth Whitening Kits for personal, family or household use and not for resale. [GN] HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd D. Wozniak, Lindsey R. Camp, Bess Hinson, Cory A. Thomas, and Mark Lennon, writing for Holland & Knight, report that multi-employer plan participants involved in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action lawsuit against Horizon Actuarial Services LLC (Horizon), a national retirement services firm, have entered into an $8.733 million settlement agreement. The agreement (originally proposed as a $7.75 million non-revisionary fund), if approved by a Georgia federal judge, would resolve all claims brought against Horizon in response to a cyberattack that exposed the personally identifiable information (PII) of more than 100,000 Horizon customers and a potential settlement class of over 4 million individuals. The proposed Horizon settlement highlights the importance of plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries conducting regular audits of their data security practices -- and those of their third-party service providers -- to mitigate cybersecurity risks in accordance with the best practices identified by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Case Background In November 2021, a group of cybercriminals breached two servers of Horizon, an actuarial consulting firm that specializes in multi-employer plan benefits. The group claimed to have stolen a list of PII, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers (SSNs) and health plan information, among other sensitive financial information. In total, more than 100,000 participants in 25 different multi-employer plans administered by Horizon were affected in the breach. Horizon ultimately negotiated a ransom payment with the cybercriminal group in exchange for the group's agreement to delete and not otherwise sell, publish or distribute the stolen data in any way. In April 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by several plan participants whose PII data was compromised in the attack. The plaintiffs alleged that Horizon's negligence jeopardized the security of sensitive personal data when it failed to adequately implement reasonable and appropriate systems and safeguards despite the growing commonplace of data breaches and the havoc they wreak. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Horizon failed to 1) properly train and supervise employees and vendors, 2) comply with industry-standard data security practices, including the use of effective security procedures, and 3) comply with state and federal laws and regulations governing data security practices. According to the plaintiffs, Horizon also failed to inform the affected individuals of the cyberattack for upward of five months. The plaintiffs argued that by collecting and deriving benefit from the personal information of its customers, Horizon had assumed legal and equitable duties to protect such information. They further claimed that they were -- and continued to be -- at risk of identity theft, fraud and various other forms of personal, social and financial harm. The plaintiffs sought restitution for the time, expenses and hardship associated with securing their personal and financial identities, as well as the fallout of having to protect themselves from a lifetime risk of attack, a risk especially heightened by the loss of their SSNs. The parties reached an initial agreement in September 2023 that proposed a $7.75 million non-reversionary settlement fund to pay the following: 1) losses related to fraud or identity theft, 2) professional fees, including attorneys, accountants and credit repair services, 3) costs associated with freezing and unfreezing credit with reporting agencies, 4) credit monitoring costs incurred from the point of Horizon's notice of the breach until the date the claim was submitted and 5) other miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses. The settlement was modified in December 2023 to the $8,733,333 submitted for court approval. The settlement agreement does not require Horizon to admit to any wrongdoing. Prudent Mitigation of Cybersecurity Risks Cybersecurity presents an increasing area of risk for ERISA-covered plan fiduciaries, and the safeguarding of sensitive individual health and financial information is paramount. United States retirement plans hold trillions of dollars in assets on behalf of individual investors, a wealth of personnel data along with such funds and remote access points to all of this information. These factors expose plan administrators as attractive targets to the sophisticated underworld of cyberhacking, ransomware and wire fraud. EBSA has now published guidance on the "best practices" fiduciaries should follow to ensure prudent mitigation of cybersecurity risks. The best practices are as follows: 1. Have a formal, well-documented cybersecurity program. 2. Conduct prudent annual risk assessments. 3. Have a reliable annual third-party audit of security controls. 4. Clearly define and assign information security roles and responsibilities. 5. Have strong access control procedures. 6. Ensure that any assets or data stored in a cloud or managed by a third-party service provider are subject to appropriate security reviews and independent security assessments. 7. Conduct periodic cybersecurity awareness training. 8. Implement and manage a secure system development life cycle program. 9. Have an effective business resiliency program addressing business continuity, disaster recovery and incident response. 10. Encrypt sensitive data that is stored in transit. 11. Implement strong technical controls in accordance with best security practices. 12. Appropriately respond to any past cybersecurity incidents. If you would like assistance with auditing your data security practices or if you have questions about EBSA's guidance on best practices or litigation avoidance strategies, contact the authors, another member of Holland & Knight's Executive Compensation and Benefits Team, ERISA Litigation Team or your primary Holland & Knight attorney. [GN] INSURANCE PIPELINE: Woods Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- DAJAH D. WOODS, Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PIPELINE INC.; ANDREW T. SHADER; COREY SHADER; JEREMY ROETTING; CHRISTOPHER KILPATRICK; AND RODRIGO DA SILVA; Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60483-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating of the overtime pay and anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Woods was employed by all Defendants from approximately July 28, 2022 through January 25, 2023. During those time periods, the Plaintiff frequently worked over 40 hours per workweek but were not credited for all hours worked and were not paid for all overtime pay hours worked. He was fired after complaining several times to multiple supervisors about not receiving proper compensation, says the Plaintiff. Based in Florida, Insurance Pipeline Inc. is a health insurance agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven F. Grover, Esq. STEVEN F. GROVER, P.A. 5075 Regency Isles Way Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 290-8826 IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ:IRBT) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/irobot-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=73566&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against iRobot Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August 5, 2022 and January 26, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) the August 2022 merger of the Company and Amazon, would place Amazon in a sufficiently dominant position in the market for robot vacuum cleaners 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. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in iRobot stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/irobot-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=73566&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vishnoi Sues Over Acne Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMVARDHAN VISHNOI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02193 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2024) is a consumer class action lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing and sale of Neutrogena brand acne cream and gel products that contain the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Illinois Subclass Members reasonably relied upon Defendant's representation that the Products were safe for personal use and, due to Defendant's omission of the presence of benzene in the Products, the Plaintiff read and relied on Defendant's labeling to conclude that the Products were not contaminated with any dangerous substance, including benzene. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as set forth in this case, Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass Members have suffered ascertainable losses of money caused by Defendant's unfair conduct of selling adulterated, misbranded, and illegally sold Products, and its misrepresentations and material omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products, says the suit. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells acne brand creams and gel products throughout the State of Illinois and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Russell M. Busch, 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 rbusch@milberg.com - and = Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861 E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, 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: pfraietta@bursor.com KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Putative Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that on February 26, 2024, Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York narrowed claims in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933 against a China-based real estate brokerage company, certain of its executives, and the underwriters in connection with a secondary offering by the company. Saskatchewan Healthcare Emps.' Pension Plan v. KE Holdings Inc., 2024 WL 775195 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2024). Plaintiff alleged, based largely on a short-seller report, that the company made misrepresentations that significantly overstated the gross transaction value ("GTV") of real estate transactions facilitated by the company, the number of agents and stores using its online platform, and the commissions the company received. Id. at *3-7. The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged misrepresentations with respect to certain statements but failed to adequately allege scienter, and therefore largely declined to dismiss the Securities Act claim but dismissed the Exchange Act claim with leave to replead. The Court first rejected plaintiff's allegation that the company failed to disclose the number of stores or agents that were not "active" on its platform, determining that a reasonable investor would not expect that all agents and stores using the company's platform were equally active. Id. at *20-21. The Court observed that the company's disclosures indicated that not all of its stores or brokers had high activity, which undermined the allegation that the company was "required to break out that information." Id. at *21. And the Court further explained that, because the company did not restate any of its prior disclosures when it later disclosed the number of agents and stores that were active, this indicated that the "incremental disclosure did not affect the [c]ompany's revenues or GTV." Id. at *22. Next, the Court held that the short-seller report was alleged to be sufficiently reliable to support plaintiff's allegations that the company's statements about its revenue and GTV were false. Id. at *23. The Court emphasized that the report explained the methodology it used to calculate the number of active stores and agents and had even developed a computer program to analyze the data published on the company's platform. Id. The report also noted that its authors had conducted in-person site visits, spoken with store agents and managers, cross-checked their results with other publicly available databases, and had included in the report photographs, transcripts, and screenshots, all of which made the report distinguishable from those at issue in certain other cases in which claims did not survive the motion-to-dismiss stage because they were based on short-seller reports that were less robust. Id. at *23-24. While defendants argued that plaintiff did not independently corroborate the information in the report, the Court held that there was "no such categorical rule" requiring them to do so. Id. at *24. And although defendants contested the report's reliability and methodology, the Court held those challenges all raised factual issues that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Id. The Court, however, held that certain other challenged statements were non-actionable statements of opinion. These included statements that "[w]e believe a large and active network of agents, brokerage stores and brokerage brands across China provides a solid foundation for serving a large number of housing customers" and "[w]e believe our reputation for high-quality service among the large housing customer base and our growing network of real estate brokerage stores and agents that transact actively on our platform well position us to increase cooperation with existing and new real estate developers," which the Court explained were "clearly signaled" as opinions that plaintiffs had not alleged were false or believed by defendants to be false. Id. at 25 & n.8. The Court also noted that these statements were not representations about the actual number of the company's stores or agents but were simply descriptions of why a large market share was important to its business, and while the statements used descriptive terms like "large" and "growing," those were not actionable because they were not quantifiable and were subject to interpretation. Id. at *26. The Court also held that the company's disclosure as a risk factor -- that it relied on various metrics like GTV to evaluate its business and that inaccuracies in those measurements could negatively impact the company -- was not actionable because it was a forward-looking statement and plaintiffs had not established that the risk had materialized at the time the statement was made. Id. at *26-27. The Court next assessed plaintiff's allegations of scienter and found them all lacking both in their totality and when considered individually. Id. at *28. The Court held that the individual defendants' roles in the company did not establish scienter merely because they held significant roles within the company and were involved in its daily operations. Id. Moreover, the Court noted that, while plaintiff alleged that the executives had received or had control over information about the company's operations, there were no specific allegations as to what contradictory information they had access to. Id. at *29. While plaintiff pointed to the company's response to the short-seller report as suggestive of scienter, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the company performed an internal investigation after the report was released. Id. And while the company removed certain data from its platform that had been referenced in the short-seller's report, the Court concluded that it did so after the company made the alleged misstatements and that the removal therefore did not suggest the company acted with scienter at the time the statements were made. Id. Finally, the Court explained that defendants' desire to maintain the company's stock price and keep the company profitable were not suggestive of scienter since this was a motive common to all corporate officers. Id. at *30. Because plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter, the Court dismissed all of plaintiff's Exchange Act claims. Id. While the failure to adequately allege scienter was enough to dismiss the Exchange Act claims, the Court also analyzed plaintiff's allegations regarding loss causation and concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged loss causation because the market price of the company's stock allegedly reacted negatively to the short-seller report, including based on intraday price fluctuations. Id. at *33. With respect to the Securities Act claims, the Court also held that other requirements were adequately alleged. The Court held plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded standing to pursue a Securities Act claim because it allegedly purchased shares pursuant to or traceable to the company's secondary offering. Id. at *31. The Court next held that plaintiff's Securities Act claims did not sound in fraud and that plaintiff did not need to allege scienter or plead their claims with specificity. The Court observed that the complaint specifically disclaimed any allegation or inference of fraud with respect to the Securities Act claims, and that the complaint was structured to draw a distinction between conduct that was alleged to be merely negligent as opposed to that which was alleged to be fraudulent. Id. at *31-32. In particular, the Court noted that the Securities Act allegations were predicated on the factual information revealed in the short-seller report, rather than on the short-seller report's broader assertion that the company committed fraud. Id. at *32.[GN] KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Profit-Sharing Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Marx, writing for HousingWire, reports that a new class-action lawsuit was filed by a former agent against real estate brokerage Keller Williams (KW), contesting alterations made to the company's profit-sharing program. There are now a total of five class-action lawsuits against KW challenging the company's profit-sharing program adjustments. Earlier in March, four agents formerly affiliated with Keller Williams -- Jerri L. Moulder, David L. Bueker, Robert E. Hill and Kevin Ortiz -- took legal action against the real estate brokerage by filing four separate class-action lawsuits. On March 29, Edward Fordyce, who worked on and off with Keller Williams from 2019 to 2022, filed a complaint aiming for class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Allegations against KW include breach of contract, declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment. Fordyce's complaint challenges adjustments made to Keller Williams' profit-sharing program. In February 2020, KW introduced a more restrictive policy to its profit-sharing program. It stated that associates who joined the brokerage on or after April 1, 2020, and subsequently jumped to a competitor would lose their revenues from the company's lifelong revenue program. But that policy did not impact agents who joined before April 1, 2020. The change introduced in 2020 also extended the wait period to become a vested member. But in August 2023, during KW's Mega Agent Camp event in Austin, the company's International Associate Leadership Council (IALC) voted to revise the profit-sharing distribution policy. Under the updated policy, vested agents who joined before April 1, 2020, and actively compete with KW brokerages would see their profit share reduced from 100% to 5%. An incentive to go back to Keller Williams remained. Former agents who return to the company within six months of the effective reduction date will have their profit share restored to 100%, KW President Marc King wrote in an email in August 2023. Also, former KW agents who have retired or left the industry altogether will retain their full profit-share distribution. The new policy is supposed to be implemented on or before July 1, 2024. The plaintiffs argue that according to the Keller Williams policies and guidelines manual, the brokerage did not have the right to terminate the profit-share program. They also claim it didn't have the right to amend any aspect of the program's method of calculating a market center's profit-sharing contribution or a recruiting sponsor's profit-sharing distribution, except as specifically directed by the IALC. Lastly, any amendment made to the profit-sharing program was only allowed to be be prospective and not retroactive. [GN] KINDRED HOSPITALITY: Faces Verhaak Suit Over Tip Misappropriation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terts Verhaak, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kindred Hospitality Group LLC, Austin Heidt, and Giovanni Ranieri, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00138-MWM (S.D. Ohio, March 15, 2024) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Revised Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Kindred Hospitality misappropriates tips paid to its servers, bartenders, and back waiters. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that non-tipped employees, including cooks and managers, are included in Defendant's tip pool. The Plaintiff further contends that the servers at Al Posto are required to do substantial side work -- comprising more than 20% of their shift -- while being paid a tipped wage rate. The Plaintiff worked as a back waiter for Defendants from the end of September 2023 through early November 2023. Kindred Hospitality Group LLC owns and operates Al Posto Restaurant located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com LARRY'S FURNITURE: Wint Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------- ALISTER WINT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LARRY'S FURNITURE INC (D/B/A LARRY'S FURNITURE), KRISHNA BHAGWANDEEN (A/K/A LARRY) and MAHADAI BHAGWANDEEN (A/K/A ANNIE), Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02200 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Wint was employed by Defendants as a furniture assembler at Larry's Furniture from approximately November 2021 until on or about November 25, 2023. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff Wint appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Among other things, Defendants failed to provide him and other employees with accurate wage statements at the time of their payment of wages, says the Plaintiff. Larry's Furniture is a furniture store located in Brooklyn, NY. [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 LENNY & LARRY'S: Garica & Kotcher Sue Over False Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL GARICA and SAMANTHA KOTCHER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LENNY & LARRY'S, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00569-DMS-VET (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling and sale of its "Lenny & Larry's The Boss Immunity Bars." The Plaintiffs allege Defendant's conduct is in breach of warranty, violates California's Business and Professions Code, California Civil Code, New York General Business Law, and is otherwise grounds for restitution on the basis of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. The Defendant has falsely portrayed its product as an Immunity bar. Its failure to include certain minimum amounts of BC30 in the formulation of its product renders claims that the product supports immune health and protein absorption false, misleading and deceptive. As a result of this false and misleading labeling, Defendant was able to sell these products to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California, New York and the United States, says the suit. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Lenny & Larry, LLC., manufactures, markets and sells "healthful" snack alternatives in the form of cookies and bars made with plant proteins, that claim to be non-GMO, free of soy and artificial sweeteners. Among their offerings, Defendant manufactures and sells "Boss Immunity Bars." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com LIMNI LLC: Faces Makaj Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MAKAJ, BIANCA MAKAJ, GARRETT PATRICK BOELENS and DOUGLAS MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIMNI LLC, dba LIMNI MEDITERRANEAN KITCHEN, MEZZALUNA DUE INC. dba MEZZLUNA PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, ROBERT PREZZZANO and NISIM SACHAKOV, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-01980 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid wages and minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime compensation; (3) unpaid "spread of hours" premiums for each day they worked a shift in excess of ten hours; (4) unpaid uniform cost and maintenance compensation; (5) liquidated damages and civil penalties; (6) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and (7) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were continuously employed by the Defendants in various "front of house," roles, such as bartending, hosting and serving, among other duties and at all times relevant. LIMNI LLC, dba LIMNI MEDITERRANEAN KITCHEN, operates a restaurant and bar which served food and drink to the general public.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq. Daniel Folchetti, Esq. VALIANT LAW 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 205 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 730-2422 Facsimile: (909) 677-2290 LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Insurance Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that the case captioned "Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No. 3:16-cv-00827 has been dismissed. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023. Said putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL) on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan Services. LORDSTOWN MOTORS: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP on April 5 disclosed that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has approved the following announcement of a proposed settlement that would benefit purchasers of Lordstown Motors (OTC:NRDE) Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) (NASDAQ: RIDEW): SUMMARY NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT If you purchased the publicly traded securities of Lordstown Motors Corp. ("LMC") during the period from August 3, 2020 through July 2, 2021, and/or held LMC's publicly traded Class A Common Stock on September 21, 2020, and were damaged thereby, you may be entitled to a payment from a settlement. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, by Order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for District of Delaware ("Bankruptcy Court"), that the Court-designated Class Representative, on behalf of himself and all members of the Ohio Settlement Class, and LMC and its subsidiaries (together, the "Debtors"), have reached a proposed settlement of all claims against certain of the Debtors and David Hamamoto ("Settling Defendants") asserted in the action, In re Lordstown Motors Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 4:21-cv-00616 (N.D. Ohio) ("Ohio Securities Litigation"), which were also asserted against certain of the Debtors in the above-captioned Chapter 11 Cases, as well as releases to other directors and officers of the Debtors who were serving in such roles as of December 12, 2023 but who are not defendants in the Ohio Securities Litigation (such directors and officers, together with the Settling Defendants, the "Released Parties"). On March 6, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Debtors' Third Modified First Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lordstown Motors Corp. and Its Affiliated Debtors (together with all schedules and exhibits thereto, and as the same may be modified in accordance with its terms, the "Plan") and preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement and certified the Ohio Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule 23, made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7023. If the Settlement is approved on a final basis, the Settlement will provide releases and resolve claims in the Ohio Securities Litigation alleging that the Settling Defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Settlement will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Plan, which provide for the creation of a Settlement Fund in the amount of at least $3 million, and subsequent additional funding of up to $7 million, for the benefit of the Ohio Settlement Class. The Ohio Securities Litigation will continue to proceed with respect to all other defendants. The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a final hearing before the Honorable Mary F. Walrath, remotely via Zoom (NASDAQ:ZM), on June 11, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time), Courtroom 4, 824 N. Market Street, 5th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Bankruptcy Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement, as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iii) approve Ohio Class Counsel's motion for payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund. The Bankruptcy Court may change the date of the hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a payment. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE OHIO SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, the long-form Notice, and the Ohio Claim Form by visiting the Ohio Settlement Claims Administrator's website, www.strategicclaims.net/lordstown/, or by contacting the administrator at: Lordstown Bankruptcy Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, info@strategicclaims.net, (866) 274-4004. Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Ohio Class Counsel: Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq., Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005, www.labaton.com, settlementquestions@labaton.com, (888) 219-6877. If you are a member of the Ohio Settlement Class, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds from the Settlement, you must submit an Ohio Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 20, 2024 to the Ohio Settlement Claims Administrator. If you are a member of the Ohio Settlement Class and do not timely submit a valid Ohio Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by the terms of the Settlement, the Confirmation Order, and the Plan, including the releases set forth therein. If you are a member of the Ohio Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the Notice so that it is received no later than May 21, 2024 by the Ohio Settlement Claims Administrator. If you exclude yourself from the Ohio Settlement Class, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement. Exclusion is the only option that potentially may allow you to pursue individual claims against the Released Parties. With respect to the Debtors, your ability to bring claims against them may be limited by the Plan and whether you timely filed an individual claim in the Chapter 11 Cases. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Ohio Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than May 21, 2024 by the Bankruptcy Court, Ohio Class Counsel, and Debtor's Counsel Representative. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEBTORS, OR DEBTORS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: APRIL 5, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT - DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman urges Luna Innovations Incorporated (NASDAQ: LUNA) investors who suffered substantial losses to submit claims: Class Period: Aug. 11, 2023 -- Mar. 25, 2024 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 31, 2024 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/LUNA Contact An Attorney Now: LUNA@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Luna Innovations Incorporated (LUNA) Securities Fraud Class Action: The litigation focuses on the propriety of Luna's past financial statements and adherence to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). More specifically, the complaint alleges that Luna made misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) its financial statements from Aug. 10, 2023 to the present included false figures as a result of improper revenue recognition; (2) as a result, Luna would be required to restate financial statements filed during Aug. 10, 2023 through Nov. 14, 2023; and (3) it lacked adequate internal controls. Investors began to learn the truth on Mar. 12, 2024, when Luna revealed that it would not timely file its annual financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2023 as a result of having reported revenues during Q2 and Q3 2023 "that did not qualify for revenue recognition under [GAAP]." The company also warned that investors should no longer rely on its financial statements for the quarters ended June 30 and September 30, 2023 and that its internal controls over financial reporting was not sufficient. This news drove the price of Luna shares crashing over 35% lower on Mar. 13, 2024. Then, on Mar. 25, 2024, Luna announced that its CEO Scott Graeff has retired from his role as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and has stepped down from the Board of Directors, sending the price of Luna shares sharply lower on Mar. 26, 2024. "We're investigating whether Luna management may have intentionally violated GAAP and its stated revenue recognition policies to appear more profitable," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Luna Innovations should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email LUNA@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] M.G. TILE: Matamoros and Alonzo Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------- WALTER RAMIREZ MATAMOROS and HUGO ALIRIO SACRAPAL ALONZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. M.G. TILE & MARBLE INC. and MIGUEL GARCIA and MIGUEL ANGEL ARMAS SR., as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-02298 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2024) seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, the Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment. Plaintiff Matamoros was employed by Defendants from in or around January 2021 until in or around November 2023 and Plaintiff Alonzo was employed by Defendants from in or around January 2021 until in or around November 2023. Headquartered in Carmel, NY, M.G. Tile & Marble Inc. offers tile and marble installation services to residential and commercial customers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 MANPOWER US: Faces Williams Suit Over FLSA Breach ------------------------------------------------- JERRELLE WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER US INC., d/b/a EXPERIS US, INC., and FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC., d/b/a FIRST CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02190 (W.D. Tenn., March 26, 2024) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated signed employment contract assignments with the Defendant to perform IT services for First Citizens National Bank. Allegedly, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay. Manpower US Inc., d/b/a Experis US, Inc., is a staffing company that provides IT and other services to clients, nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, 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 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com MAP FOODS: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------- NANCY LIBETH MORALES RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAP FOODS INC. d/b/a MICHAEL ANTHONY'S PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT and MICHAEL CALLARI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02257 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Nancy Libeth Morales Ruiz was employed by Defendants from in or around April 2022 until in or around February 2024. Although she worked approximately 60 hours or more hours per week from in or around the last week of April 2022 until in or around June 2022 and approximately 59 hours or more hours per week from in or around July 2022 until in or around February 2024, Defendants did not pay her time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff. MAP Foods, Inc. operates a pizza restaurant located at 2425 Middle Country Road, Centereach, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 MEADOW LARK: Quinn May Leave to File Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW QUINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MEADOW LARK TRANSPORT, INC., MEADOW LARK COMPANIES, INC., MEADOW LARK AGENCY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00055-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Cavan entered an order: 1. Granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file first amended Complaint; the Plaintiff shall promptly file the Amended Complaint in accordance with Local Rule 15.1; and 2. Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for classification and motion for default judgment, without prejudice to refile. In its Oct. 11, 2022 Scheduling Order, the Court set a deadline for motions to amend pleadings on Jan. 9, 2023. Since that deadline has long since passed, the Plaintiff requests that the Court modify the Scheduling Order to permit the amendment. Meadowlark provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EUTS9R at no extra charge.[CC] MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Partly Favors Consumers in Diesel Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- financialexpress.com reports that a German court ruled on March 28, 2024 partly in favour of consumers in a class action suit against Mercedes-Benz over diesel emissions defeat devices. Some of the German luxury carmaker's diesel models with the Euro 6 grade engines built between 2012-2016 had cheat devices, the Stuttgart court said. It found no violations in the older Euro 5 models, however. Owners can return the cars and count on a refund minus wear and tear, provided the intended violation is confirmed, the court said in its verdict. "An important course for damages claims has now been set," said the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (VZBV), representing around 2,800 consumers in the case. Mercedes said it would file an appeal. "We continue to believe that the claims asserted against our company are unfounded and will defend ourselves against them," said a spokesperson. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Albemarle County Joins Social Media Platform Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- https://3wv.com/ reports that Albemarle County Public Schools is entering into a class action lawsuit against such social media platforms as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat and others. That over concerns about the ill effects the platforms have on students, including addiction, suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. The motion to join the lawsuit was unanimously approved during the March 28, 2024, meeting of the Albemarle County School Board. The board's full statement is found below. "I know that I speak for all members of the School Board of Albemarle County when I say that we are concerned about our students' use of social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat and others," Dr. Rebecca Berlin, White Hall District representative, said at March 28, 2024 night's meeting. Berlin continued, presenting concerns about the platforms' deceptive practices to attract and addict students to gather personal data that is often sold to third parties and the detrimental effects to student mental health from the habitual use of these platforms. "We are incurring substantial costs -- not only in dollars, but in our most important assets: our children -- to assist and support our students who are suffering from social media-inflicted injuries to their mental health," Berlin said. The motion presented and unanimously approved at the March 28 meeting directs School Division Counsel Josiah Black to engage outside litigation counsel and join the lawsuit on behalf of Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS). The suit, filed in early October, alleges that social media platforms fail to adequately warn users about the mental health risks associated with their use, including addition, suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. "As a parent of two children, each navigating the complexities of social media, I carry a personal responsibility to champion the rights of these young children and their families," Tom Cartmell, partner at Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP and leader of several committees established as part of this suit, told PR Newswire in December. "These corporate giants were well aware of the harm they were inflicting, yet persisted in their pursuits, at times exacerbating issues that resulted in personal injuries for these vulnerable children." Entering this litigation would give ACPS the opportunity for financial recovery of funds that have been funneled into the mental health care of our students if the defending parties are found liable. It would also give ACPS the opportunity to obtain future damages to fund initiatives to help support student mental health issues caused by social media. "We may recover some damages on behalf of ACPS, but that is not really the primary goal. The most important goals are forcing these companies to change their deceptive practices and showing our students and their families that we are concerned about their well-being and will do what is necessary to support them in any way we can," Black said. "As a school division, we have a responsibility to stand up for our students and their families, and joining this lawsuit is one way we can do just that," he added. Black will oversee the involvement of ACPS in this suit and be the point person for the division's participation in this effort. [GN] MICHIGAN: Inmates' Family Members, Parents Sued Over Illegal Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- Brandi Buchman, writing for Law&Crime, reports that children and families in Michigan say they are being stripped of their right to see their incarcerated loved ones in person for years just so county officials and prison telecom companies and their partners can reap lucrative profits in an illegal kickback scheme while the families suffer long term consequences. The allegations are found in a pair of class action lawsuits filed last month in Michigan. The class actions are separate, and the group of plaintiffs in both are diverse and are made up of parents and family members of inmates incarcerated in St. Clair and Genesee County, Michigan. Represented by their parents or guardians, some plaintiffs are as young as just 2 years old. Many are preteens on the verge of life's big changes from childhood to adolescence and have told the court they are looking for connection and guidance from their parents despite the circumstances. At least one plaintiff is the mother of an incarcerated woman who alleges that an underlying scheme to cut off in-person visitation in favor of video-call visits only has relegated her relationship with her daughter to a series of dropped calls, slowly eating away at their relationship and contributing to the destruction of their mutual well-being. One of the class action lawsuits is filed against Sheriff Mat King of St. Clair County, Michigan, and names the prison telecom company Securus Technologies and its parent owner Platinum Equity. It is specific to inmates housed in St. Clair County Jail and alleges that the kickback scheme that forced families into an "impossible position" originated in 2017. The other class action stems from an even older ban on in-person visitation in Genesee County, Michigan. This started in 2014, according to the lawsuit filed in the Seventh Circuit Court for the County of Genesee. This complaint names Sheriff Christopher Swanson in Genesee County as well as Global Tel*Link Corporation which does business as ViaPath Technologies. The allegations in each claim largely mirror one another. In St. Clair, for example, when the in-person family visitation ban went into effect in 2017, it forced "families desperate to maintain some form of contact with their loved one, however inferior" to choose between paying $12.99 for 20 minutes of "painfully inadequate video" or paying for basic necessities like food, rent, gas or hygiene products. "Even these low-quality video calls are completely inaccessible to many because of their price tag, because of the required technology, or because the video call format is meaningless for infants, neuro-divergent children, and people with various disabilities. Many people will not see their loved one's face -- even as a frozen or pixilated image on a screen -- for months or years until they are released or transferred," the 96-page St. Clair complaint states. Securus is alleged to pay St. Clair County 50% of that $12.99 and 78% of the 21 cents per minute cost of each and every phone call among inmates, the class action states. Text messages cost a 50 cent "Stamp" plus a $3.75 transaction fee to purchase them. Securus is charging families "exorbitant rates" to talk to inmates while it garners a guaranteed contract that St. Clair County would pay the company at least $190,000 annually, the plaintiffs say. At bottom, the contracts incentivize jails to go to an all-digital visitation format and it was this bargain that allowed Securus, for example, to install its own digital kiosks where in-person visits once took place. The Michigan Constitution enshrines the "fundamental" rights of intimate association and family integrity, lawyers for the St. Clair plaintiffs write. That means that the integrity of parent-child relationships, even for incarcerated parents since their children and family members are entitled to keep their relationships alive through physical contact, too. Under the visitation ban in St. Clair, "children and parents are unable to look directly into each other's eyes, hold each other's hands, give each other a hug or otherwise maintain the in-person connection that are essential to intimate family relationships." At best, they say videos are "grainy and jerky" and malfunction or show only a "green screen where the caller should be." The audio is frequently no better: it is muffled and garbled and family members must strain to hear over the din over background noise from the inmate's housing pod, the plaintiffs say. Sometimes, the plaintiffs say, there is no audio at all. And when the video call option completely vanishes -- whether it is because the inmate wasn't released from their cell on time or because the call didn't connect or because the call kiosk malfunctioned, or the quality was too poor -- the plaintiffs say their money isn't refunded. The St. Clair lawsuit was accompanied by affidavits from some of the children of the incarcerated. They, their parents and expert testimony from doctors and psychologists consulted for the case urge that "completely separating children from their parents -- keeping them from seeing and touching one another" is similar to "torture." "Such separation causes children and parents serious adverse health effects that follow them into adolescence and adulthood. As a result of Defendants' Family Visitation Ban, the children and parents bringing this case have experienced grievous harm that will change them for the rest of their lives," they allege. In one affidavit from plaintiff M.M., a 12-year-old whose father is incarcerated in St. Clair, they expressed how difficult it is to say how "low" you are feeling on an email: It's better to see him in person and talk to him about my emotions more. Online, you can't really tell how you feel, can't really tell what someone sounds like or what they actually feel. You could be like, ‘I'm happy' but you're actually sad. I need to see my dad in person. If I could visit my dad, I would give him a big hug. I know this is happening to a lot of other kids and parents. I've talked to lawyers about what it means to be involved in a class action. I want to be a part of this case so I can help other kids like me be able to see their parents and help parents like my dad be able to see their kids. In the Genesee complaint, more than a half dozen children as well as adult family members say the county had a similar setup with Securus until July 2018 when it switched over to Global Tel-Link. That deal proposed a fixed commission on the phone call system of $15,000 a month, or $180,000 annually -- regardless of monthly call usage. The plaintiffs say this was a 25% increase over the kickback revenue it was getting from Securus before Genesee County switched to Global Tel-Link, or GTL. "In addition, GTL offered a $60,000 yearly cash bonus it called a 'technology grant' and 20-percent of video call revenue, estimated at $16,644 annually, and subject to considerable increases if the county defendants could accomplish a large video-call volume," the complaint states. All told, the county stood to make a minimum of $240,000 for each year of the contract it secured. In 2018, GTL and Genesee County set the price for remote video calls at $10 for 25 minutes and "stipulated that Genesee County would receive a 20% commission paid out monthly." These "monopoly contracts" are creating huge burdens on people who are already low-income and have no choice but to pay the fees the companies and county set, the lawsuit says. A June 2021 report in Business Insider, the plaintiffs in the Genesee lawsuit note, found that the exceedingly high cost of prison phone calls raked in $1.4 billion while women and people of color were driven into debt. Both lawsuits seek an immediate end to the bans on in-person visits. An spokesperson for Securus' parent company, Aventiv Technologies, told Law&Crime in an email that the case against them in "misguided and without merit." "We look forward to defending ourselves, and we will not let this suit detract from our successful efforts to create meaningful and positive outcomes for the consumers we serve," the spokesperson said. Swanson and King did not respond to request for comment. An attorney representing the plaintiffs in St. Clair County, Cody Cutting of Civil Rights Corps, said in an email that the next steps will be for the sheriff and county in each case to respond to their request for the preliminary injunction and then a hearing will be held to air out the evidence in each case. The hearing in Genesee is slated for April 15; plaintiffs in St. Clair meet on April 29. [GN] MOMENTUS INC: July 4 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-20393 In the Matter of Momentus, Inc., Stable Road Acquisition Corp., SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, and Brian Kabot, Respondents. PLAN NOTICE OF MOMENTUS STABLE ROAD FAIR FUND TO: Individuals and entities, or their lawful successors, who purchased SRAC common stock, SRAC warrants, or SRAC units, traded on the NASDAQ under the trading symbols SRAC, SRACW, and SRACU ("Securities") during the period October 7, 2020 through July 13, 2021, inclusive ("Recovery Period"). If you fall within the group above, you must submit a completed Claim Form with the necessary documentation so that it is postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, received) by July 4, 2024 (the "Claims Bar Date"), to be considered for eligibility to receive a Distribution Payment from the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund. Purpose of this Plan Notice The purpose of this Plan Notice is to inform you that you may be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund described herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund, you must file a Claim Form in accordance with the steps set forth in this Plan Notice and in the Plan of Distribution (the "Plan") approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"). Claim Forms, together with this Plan Notice, are being mailed to all known Preliminary Claimants1 identified by the Commission-appointed Fund Administrator ("Fund Administrator"), Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq").2 Copies of the Plan, this Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are available on the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund website at www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com. PLEASE READ THIS PLAN NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. Background On July 13, 2021, the Commission issued the Order instituting and simultaneously settling cease-and-desist proceedings against the Respondents. In the Order, the Commission found that Momentus, a privately held space company that aspires to provide space infrastructure services, and its former Chief Executive Officer Mikhail Kokorich ("Kokorich"), made materially false statements, omitted to state material facts, and engaged in other deceptive conduct as Momentus sought to go public through a business combination with SRAC, a publicly traded special-purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"). Specifically, the Commission found that Momentus' business plans and multi-billion dollar revenue projections, as provided to investors and described in SRAC's Form S-4 registration statement/proxy statement filed in connection with the anticipated merger, were materially false and misleading. According to the Order, on October 7, 2020, Momentus and SRAC announced their merger agreement and made presentations to private and institutional investors as well as analysts that contained materially false statements concerning the success of Momentus' technology. On the same day, SRAC entered into subscription agreements with private investment in public equity ("PIPE") investors who agreed to invest $175 million of capital by purchasing 17.5 million shares of common stock of the company, if and after the merger was approved. The Commission also found that SRAC included Momentus' material misstatements and false financial projections in its registration statement filed with the Commission in November 2020 and in amendments filed on December 14, 2020 and March 8, 2021 which Kabot signed. Further, the Commission found that Momentus and SRAC did not disclose that, among other things, there was no assurance that its Momentus' technology was "sufficiently reliable and efficient to permit commercialization…" until June 29, 2021 when it filed the third amendment to its registration statement. According to the Order, Momentus, Kokorich, and SRAC also concealed and made false statements about U.S. government concerns with national security and foreign ownership risks posed by Kokorich, including concerns regarding his affiliation with Momentus which jeopardized, among other things, the Momentus' launch schedule and revenue projections that were based in part on assumptions about the timing of its first commercial launch. The Commission found that in January 2021 Momentus and SRAC became aware of correspondence from the U.S. Defense Department stating that Momentus posed a risk to national security as a result of its association with Kokorich. Kokorich, a foreign national could not access parts of Momentus' technology without an export license, which was denied because of national security reasons with respect to Kokorich. To address this issue, Kokorich formally stepped down as CEO of Momentus on January 25, 2021 and on March 31, 2021, placed his shares of Momentus stock in a voting trust. According to the Order, in its June 29, 2021 amendment to its registration statement, SRAC disclosed that Momentus was forced to reduce its financial projections due to adverse licensing decisions stemming from Kokorich's national security risks, and contributed to a 50% decline in Momentus' enterprise valuation, from $1.1 billion to less than $600 million. In addition, the Commission found that Brian Kabot, SRAC's CEO who signed public filings that included misrepresentations about Momentus' technology and national security risks, caused SRAC's disclosure violations. According to the Order, SRAC's public filings, including registration statements signed by Kabot, incorporated Momentus' and Kokorich's false and misleading claims caused investors to be misled about material aspects of Momentus' business. The Commission further found that Kabot was a managing member of SRAC's sponsor, SRC-NI, and as such his conduct as described in the Order was attributable to SRC-NI. The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay $8,040,000.00 in civil money penalties to the Commission. The Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalties paid can be distributed to harmed investors (the "Fair Fund"). The Respondents have paid in full. The Fair Fund has been deposited in a Commission-designated account at the United States Department of the Treasury, and any accrued interest will be added to the Fair Fund. Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology To qualify for a payment from the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund, you must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website at www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com and on the Commission's public website at https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2024/34-99688-dp.pdf. You can also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Fund Administrator at 1-888-817-6536 or by emailing info@MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com. The eligibility criteria include the following: You must have purchased SRAC common stock, SRAC warrants, or SRAC units, traded on the NASDAQ under the trading symbols SRAC, SRACW, and SRACU, during the Recovery Period. Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated under the Plan and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $10.00. Claim Forms A CLAIM FORM IS BEING SENT TO ALL PRELIMINARY CLAIMANTS KNOWN TO THE FUND ADMINISTRATOR. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A CLAIM FORM OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CLAIM FORMS, PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW UNDER "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION." IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FAIR FUND, PLEASE SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ELECTRONICALLY ON THE FAIR FUND WEBSITE AT WWW.MOMENTUSSTABLEROADFAIRFUND.COM. YOU MAY ALSO SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM FORM AND DOCUMENTS TO THE ADDRESS LISTED BELOW. THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM ONLINE OR BY MAIL AT THE ADDRESS BELOW IS JULY 4, 2024 — ALSO REFERENCED HEREIN AS THE "CLAIMS BAR DATE." PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A "POSTMARKED" DEADLINE. IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE JULY 4, 2024, OR YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM ELECTRONICALLY ON THE FAIR FUND WEBSITE ON OR BEFORE THIS DATE, YOU MAY BE BARRED FROM RECEIVING A PAYMENT FROM THE MOMENTUS STABLE ROAD FAIR FUND. THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR EACH TRANSACTION LISTED IN PARTS II–III OF THE CLAIM FORM. Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. Fund Administrator P.O. Box 2567 Portland, OR 97208‑2567 Claim Determinations Within 90 days of the Claims Bar Date, the Fund Administrator will send a Claim Status Notice to all Preliminary Claimants that submitted a Claim Form. The Claim Status Notice will set forth the Fund Administrator's determination of the eligibility of the claim. If a claim is denied in whole or in part, the Fund Administrator will state the reason for such denial. The reasons for denial may include the failure to submit documentation supporting the transactions claimed or the adequacy of such documentation. Preliminary Claimants with deficient or denied claims will be given an opportunity to cure the deficiency or seek reconsideration of the denial. The Fund Administrator will send, as appropriate, a Final Determination Notice to any Preliminary Claimants who responded to the Claim Status Notice in an effort to cure a deficiency or to seek reconsideration of a denied claim, or otherwise dispute the Fund Administrator's determination, notifying the Preliminary Claimant of its determination. Additional Information Additional information regarding the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund may be found at www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com. Additional Claim Forms and Plan Notices may also be downloaded at the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund's website. You may obtain additional information or request copies of Claim Forms and Plan Notices by calling the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund's toll‑free number at (888) 817‑6536, or by emailing info@MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com. PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE WWW.MOMENTUSSTABLEROADFAIRFUND.COM FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES 1 Capitalized terms not defined here are defined in the Plan. 2 On March 7, 2024, the Commission appointed Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq") as the Fund Administrator. URL: www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com NEW YORK, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Greene Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN GREENE, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05762-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order: -- Granting the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, NYCHRL, and Monell liability, save for Greene, Sanchez-Esquivel, and Ayu's claims for reasonable accommodation under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act; and -- Granting dismissal of Ayu's claims for false arrest arising from his April and May 2022 arrests, and Collins, Ayu, and Amitabh's warrantless entry claims, as well as their corresponding state law claims. The Plaintiffs include GIOVANNA SANCHEZ-ESQUIVEL; SARAH ARVIO; LISA COLLINS; ORITSEWEYIMI OMOANUKHE AYU; and NEIL AMITABH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and COMMUNITY ACCESS, INC.; NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS OF NEW YORK CITY, INC.; CORRECT CRISIS INTERVENTION TODAY – NYC; and VOICES OF COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS AND LEADERS NEW YORK. The Defendants include ERIC ADAMS; BILL DE BLASIO; KEECHANT L. SEWELL; DERMOT F. SHEA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER MARTIN HABER; NYPD POLICE SERGEANT GBAIN, NYPD POLICE OFFICER VIKRAM PRASAD; NYPD POLICE OFFICER ANDRE DAWKINS; NYPD POLICE OFFICER TYRONE FISHER; NYPD POLICE OFFICER DEVIENDRA RAMAYYA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER JULIAN TORRES; NYPD OFFICER SANCHEZ; NYPD OFFICER MARRONE; and NYPD OFFICERS JOHN and JANE DOES No. 1-40. In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed adequately to plead "the existence of a municipal policy or custom" under either a formal, de facto, or deliberate indifference theory. As such, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Monell claim is granted. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendants New York City and numerous City employees to challenge the City's practice of using "police officers as first responders to mental health crises." Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the City's policies unlawfully require the police forcibly to seize individuals with perceived mental disabilities even when they pose no threat to themselves or others, stripping the mentally disabled of their constitutional rights to be free from unwarranted seizures, detentions, and excessive force. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=syUgLj at no extra charge.[CC] NEXT BRIDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 14 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds acquirers of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc. ("NBH") shares in connection with NBH's spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc. ("Meta Materials") on or around December 14, 2022, of the important May 14, 2024 lead plaintiff deadline. The case is against Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., Ken Rice, George Palikaras, Robert L. Cook, Clifton DuBose Jr., Joseph DeWoody, Lucas T. Hawkins, Delvina Oelkers, Mia Pitts, Kristin Whitley, and Gregory McCabe (together, "Defendants"). SO WHAT: If you acquired NBH shares you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the NBH class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23445 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 14, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, NBH filed a registration statement in connection with its spin-off from Meta Materials which contained false and/or materially misleading statements. The statements at issue concern the value of NBH's oil and gas assets and NBH's transactions with related parties. The complaint alleges that these false and/or materially misleading statements violated the Securities Act of 1933 and, consequently, damaged shareholders who received NBH shares in conjunction with the spin-off. To join the NBH class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23445 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NOHO HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIHAL ERKAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NoHo Hospitality, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02142-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024), arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination. She also seeks for compensatory damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of suit as provided by state and federal law. Headquartered in New York, NoHo Hospitality is engaged in hotel, restaurants and catering business. It operates the website, https://www.nhgnyc.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510 Hicksville, NY 11801 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 Facsimile: (929) 333-7774 E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com OPEN DOOR: Court Stays Discovery in Sharma Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALA SHARMA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. OPEN DOOR NY HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00497-DG-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joseph A. Marutollo entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court finds that Plaintiff will suffer little prejudice as a result of a stay. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff is not moving to toll the statute of limitations under the FLSA. The Defendant's motion will be fully briefed in less than two months. Moreover, while there has already been significant motion practice in this case -- all of which has been advanced by Plaintiff -- this case is still in its early stages. Therefore, the Plaintiff's argument that potential opt-ins may be "seriously prejudiced" is unavailing. On Jan. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated filed the complaint in this action, alleging that Defendant violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by depriving Plaintiff and others similarly situated of their lawful, promptly paid, minimum and overtime wages. Open Door is a senior care agency. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zrQwGH at no extra charge.[CC] ORACLE AMERICA: Realscape Group Sues Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ REALSCAPE GROUP LLC d/b/a REALOGIC SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00558-CEF (N.D. Ohio, March 26, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with properly functioning NetSuite products and asserting claims for, among other things, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty. The Defendant has purported that its software is being usable "off the shelf." However, it requires licensees to purchase "implementation" services from Oracle for the purported purpose of easing the transition from the former platform to NetSuite modules. In addition, the NetSuite products are not usable "off the shelf," are not actually capable of performing the functions promised without extensive customization, and, as a result of Defendant selling the financing, license fees are due immediately regardless of whether the software performs as promised or is delivered on the timetable needed by the business, says the suit. Oracle is a software company that offers products and services to small and medium-sized businesses. Among the products offered by Oracle is its NetSuite brand of cloud-based software which is purportedly designed to address a company's need to perform a broad range of administrative tasks a business requires including, among other functions, general ledger accounting, management of human resources, and payroll. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com OXY USA: CRFT Class Cert Bid Overruled w/o Prejudice to Refiiling ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cherry Rider Family Trust et al., v. OXY USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01274 (D. Kan., Filed Dec. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed March 12, 2024 is overruled without prejudice to refiling at such time, and after such discovery, as Judge James deems appropriate. The Defendants' joint motion for an extension of time to respond is overruled as moot. The nature of suit states diversity-breach of contract.[CC] PACIFIC RED: Faces Class Action Over Wage and Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- On February 15, 2023, Brown White & Osborn LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Pacific Red, LLC, Pacific Design Center 1, LLC, and Cohen PDC LLC, alleging wage claims for: -- Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; -- Failure to Pay Overtime and Double Time Compensation; -- Failure to Provide Meal Periods; -- Failure to Provide Rest Periods; and -- Failure to Indemnify or Reimburse Business Expenses. We filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court. It is captioned Jeremy McArthur v. Pacific Design Center 1, LLC, et al., Case No: 24STCV03908. The class action seeks to certify a class defined as "all current and former non-exempt employees who work or worked for Pacific Red, LLC, Pacific Design Center 1, LLC, and/or Cohen PDC LLC during the time-period of February 15, 2020, to the Present." The lawsuit alleges that Pacific Design Center, located in West Hollywood, California, employs non-exempt employees under various job classifications, such as "engineers," "security," "janitors," and under various departments such as its in-house restaurants, cafes, and fitness centers. Irrespective of these classifications or departments, the lawsuit alleges that Pacific Design Center implements common policies, procedures, and practices that unlawfully fail to compensate non-exempt employees for all hours worked, including overtime and/or double compensation for work exceeding eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours per week, as well as systemic meal and rest break violations. The lawsuit also alleges that employees are not reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred for the benefit of Pacific Design Center. Based on these allegations, the class action seeks to recover unpaid wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed expenses, and other statutory penalties, on behalf of all non-exempt employees from February 15, 2020, through the present. In addition to this class action lawsuit, a claim under the California Private Attorney General Act has been submitted to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency seeking civil penalties for these Labor Code violations. [GN] PANAMERICAN CONSULTING: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Paul Thompson, writing for Cook County Record, reports that PanAmerican Consulting, a debt settlement provider, is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading consumers and worsening their financial conditions. The suit was filed by Victoria Wolworth, identified as a resident of Illinois, on behalf of herself and others in similar situations. The case accuses the company of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and the Illinois Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act (DSCPA). The complaint alleges that PanAmerican Consulting, which operates nationally including in Illinois, targets consumers in significant debt with promises to improve their financial situation. However, these promises often result in consumers being left deeper in debt than when they started. The DSCPA requires debt settlement companies operating in Illinois to be licensed and abide by certain provisions, such as a 15% cap on payment for settled debt. It also prohibits false and deceptive communications by these companies. Violations of the DSCPA are considered violations of the ICFA. The lawsuit claims that PanAmerican Consulting has violated numerous provisions of both acts, causing significant harm to Wolworth and other members of the class action. The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include all PanAmerican clients in Illinois in the past three years. The case was filed on March 20 in Cook County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, including compensatory, statutory, actual, nominal and punitive damages. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Seth McCormick, of Great Lakes Consumer Law Firm, of Chicago; and Bryan Paul Thompson and Robert W. Harrer, of the Chicago Consumer Law Center, of Lisle.[GN] PAPAYA GAMING: Kelly-Starkebaum Alleges Deceptive Gaming Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRENNA KELLY-STARKEBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPAYA GAMING LTD. and PAPAYA GAMING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02310-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2024) arises out of Defendants' violations of the New York Deceptive Practices Act and the New York False Advertising Act. According to the complaint, Defendant Papaya represents that its games are filled with live, actual opponents, which guarantees a fair gaming environment. However, Papaya's representations are false. Instead of competing with live, actual players, Papaya's game applications are regularly filled with -- or controlled by -- nonhuman, computer robots. Moreover, Papaya failed to reveal facts sufficient to put Plaintiff and the other Class members on inquiry notice. Papaya does not inform players that they are matched with computer robots or otherwise impact the outcome of games. Rather, it gives players the false and misleading impression that they are playing against other users by claiming that it matches players against others with a similar skill level to ensure a fun and fair experience for everyone, says the suit. Based in Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel, Papaya Gaming Ltd. is a foreign limited liability company with a U.S.-based subsidiary of Papaya Gaming, Inc. It was founded in 2016 and develops mobile games for real money tournaments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 757 Third Ave, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (469) 895-5269 E-mail: mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com - and - Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2847 E-mail: aklevorn@burnscharest.com - and - Spencer Cox, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 577-3977 E-mail: scox@burnscharest.com PLUG POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 21 ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) between May 9, 2023 and January 16, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 21, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Plug Power securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Plug Power class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1011 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 21, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Plug Power overstated its ability and/or efforts to mitigate the negative impacts that, inter alia, supply chain constraints and material shortages could have or were having on Plug Power's hydrogen business, as well as the sufficiency of its cash and capital to fund its operations; (2) Plug Power continued to experience delays related to its green hydrogen production facility build-out plans, as well as in securing external funding sources to finance its growth plans; (3) Plug Power downplayed the true scope and severity of all the foregoing when these issues were eventually revealed; (4) as a result of all the foregoing, Plug Power also overstated the near-term prospects of its hydrogen production operations, as well as the viability of expanding those operations; and (5) as a result, Plug Power's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Plug Power class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1011 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PLUNKETT’S PEST: Followell Seeks Route Technician's Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON FOLLOWELL, individually and for others similarly situated v. PLUNKETT'S PEST CONTROL, INC., ind., and d/b/a VARMENT GUARD WILDLIFE SERVICES (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2024), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff Followell began working for Plunkett's Pest Control (PPC) as a Route Technician in approximately April 2023 and continues to work for PPC to the present throughout Illinois. Allegedly, PPC does not pay Followell and its other Route Technicians overtime premium compensation for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, PPC uniformly misclassifies Followell and its other route technicians as exempt from overtime and pays them a salary guarantee plus non-discretionary bonuses based on the completion of specific tasks or goals set by PPC, but no overtime premium compensation, says the suit. Headquartered in Fridley, MN, PPC provides pest control and extermination services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS PC 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PORSCHE CARS: Parties in Abel Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abel v. Porsche Cars North America, INC. et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00593 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. -- The Court said that the deadlines should include a deadline for: (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions.[CC] PRACTICE RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Practice Resources, LLC, Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00890 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, in light of the parties' ongoing settlement negotiations and pending motion to certify class. If the parties do not come to a final settlement agreement, the Defendant is granted leave to refile, said the Court. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Practice Resources is a multispecialty practice management company.[CC] PRACTICE RESOURCES: Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Practice Resources, LLC, Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00890-LEK-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs James Stewart, Susan Stewart, John Bachura, Brenda Sparks, and Steven N. Esce, and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order: (i) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement; (ii) certifying a Settlement Class pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3); (iii) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider final approval, pursuant to the schedule set forth above; (iv) directing that notice of the proposed Settlement and hearing be provided to absent Class Members in a manner consistent with the Settlement Agreement and the Notice Program; and (v) entering the proposed order regarding Preliminary Approval Order. Practice Resources is premier medical billing and practice management company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nVzaeR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE, Suite 302, Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Harker Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON LECHELE HARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION AND DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01830 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2024) arises from Defendants' inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by Clop crime group on or about June 1, 2023, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. Delta Dental and Progressive Software Corporation (PSC) failed to timely and accurately disclose that Plaintiff's and Class members' personal identifiable information had been improperly acquired or accessed. Although PSC claims to have notified its customers immediately upon learning of the vulnerability, Delta Dental did not notify its own customers of the data breach until January 12, 2024. Moreover, Defendants deprived Plaintiff and Class members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm by failing to provide timely notice, says the suit. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Delta Dental of California is a leading dental insurance provider. Together with its affiliates, the company provides dental benefits to more than 45 million people across 15 states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Ave, Ste 500, San Francisco, CA, 94102-3275 Telephone: (415) 846-3862 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Weaver Privacy Suit Transferred to D. Mass ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JEFFREY WEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; WELLTOK, INC.; and BEAUMONT HEALTH nka COREWELL HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10157, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 15, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10645-ADB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and private health information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff and Class Members' names, dates of birth, email addresses, phone numbers, diagnosis, health insurance information, and Social Security numbers. Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts based software company that offers a range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy J. Lowe, Esq. Michael G. Latiff, Esq. Mitchell Capp, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS PLC 39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 318 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 220-1359 E-mail: tlowe@mcdonaldhopkins.com mlatiff@mcdonaldhopkins.com mcapp@mcdonaldhopkins.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Prudential Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In re PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. Civil Action No. SECURITIES LITIGATION 2:19-cv-20839-SRC-CLW CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. BETWEEN JUNE 5, 2019 AND AUGUST 2, 2019, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on June 13, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler at the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg Building, 2 Federal Square, Newark, NJ, 07101-0999, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")(1) for $35 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, www.PrudentialSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to that website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information will be posted to the Settlement website, www.PrudentialSecuritiesSettlement.com. IF YOU PURCHASED PRUDENTIAL COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 5, 2019 AND AUGUST 2, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than July 30, 2024) or electronically (no later than July 30, 2024). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by July 30, 2024, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased Prudential common stock between June 5, 2019 and August 2, 2019, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definition for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.PrudentialSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to or calling: Prudential Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 301135 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 Telephone: 1-888-298-3183 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Prudential, Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 Email: settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY MAY 23, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF THE $35 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $200,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MAY 23, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: March 8, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (1) The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.PrudentialSecuritiesSettlement.com. CONTACT: Media: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Shareholder Relations Department Greg Wood (619) 231-1058 QIHOO 360: $29.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALTIMEO ASSET MANAGEMENT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., HONGYI ZHOU, XIANGDONG QI, and ERIC X. CHEN, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All owners and former owners of Qihoo ADS and Class A ordinary shares ("Qihoo Securities") (i) who sold their Qihoo Securities during the period from December 18, 2015 through July 15, 2016, inclusive, (the "Class Period") and/or (ii) whose Qihoo Securities were tendered, cancelled, or exchanged in Qihoo's July 15, 2016 take-private Merger (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd. ("Qihoo"), Hongyi Zhou and Eric X. Chen (collectively, the "Settling Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $29,750,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer either in person or remotely, at the Court's discretion, on August 1, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. EDT in Courtroom 1305 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated February 12, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another written notice. Information about the hearing will be posted at www.QihooSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting www.QihooSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Qihoo Securities Settlement c/o Claims Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (844) 699-3961 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael Grunfeld, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 www.pomlaw.com (212) 661-1100 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than August 8, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than July 5, 2024. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than July 5, 2024. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: April 9, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUEBEC: Court Hears Class Action Lawsuit by Taxi Drivers -------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Serebrin of The Canadian Press reports that driving a taxi was not how Jean-Pierre Derival planned to spend his golden years. But this week, as the 80-year-old prepared to testify at a trial against the Quebec government's management of the taxi industry, he was behind the wheel of his cab. His goal, he said, was to use his taxi owner's permit as a source of income in retirement. Then, in 2013, ride-hailing company Uber entered the Quebec market, and his permit, along with cab permits across the province, slowly began losing their value. And in 2019, the province passed a law to abolish the permit system altogether, crushing Derival's retirement dreams. He's now part of a class-action lawsuit against the government on the grounds that the province's handling of Uber's entry into the market and Quebec's taxi reform law allowed Quebec to expropriate his property -- his permit -- without adequately compensating him. "It's unfair, your honour, to deprive the members (of the class action) of their life's work, it's an injustice that I find shocking, and ultimately, it's illegal," Bruce Johnston, a lawyer representing the cab drivers, said in his opening arguments as the month-long trial began at the Montreal courthouse on April 2, 2024. Before the 2019 taxi reform, each cab in the province required a permit. The provincial government limited the number of permits in each region, but allowed them to be resold, creating a secondary market and leading their value to rise to more than $200,000 in the Montreal area. Permit holders often rented them out, allowing others to drive their cabs for a fee. Buying a permit gave people access to a supply-controlled market created by the government, Johnston told the court, but also opened other doors, because permits could be used as collateral for loans, such as mortgages. "It was their business, it was their pension fund," he said. "For many of them, the decision to buy a taxi permit was the biggest financial decision of their lives, for which they worked and made sacrifices for decades. It was the cornerstone of their financial planning." When Quebec abolished the permit system, it gave holders a total of $800 million in compensation, but Johnston said that figure fell far below the market value of the permits before Uber's 2013 arrival, which he estimated at around $1.2 billion. Derival bought his permit in 1976 for $10,500; he took out loans from a bank and a friend to buy it. That permit, he said, offered him employment but also something he could pass on to his children. "At least if I died, my children could use it," he told the court, after describing the series of labour-intensive, low-paying jobs he had held after immigrating from Haiti in 1971. The compensation he received from the government -- a total of $75,000 -- was less than the total income stream he had expected in retirement by renting his permit. Max Pierre, another former permit holder who also immigrated from Haiti, told the court buying a taxi permit was the only way to find work that paid more than minimum wage. In 1991, he bought a permit for $37,955 -- it came with a car, a taxi dome light and meter. He would later buy another permit near the peak of the market for $210,000. To buy the first permit, he said, "I gave up a lot," adding that he got help from his sister. In 2017, he said, he was able to rent his permit and his taxi to another driver for $500 a week, but with the end of the permit system, which went into effect in 2020, and the COVID-19 pandemic, no one was interested in driving for him, and as a result he sold his car. "What the government did was an abuse of power," he told the court. Eric Cantin, a lawyer for the Quebec government, argued that the province had the right to make the choices it did. People can think Uber's arrival in Quebec was a bad thing, that Uber is a bad corporate citizen, and that the old taxi monopoly should have been maintained, Cantin told the court, but the government, he added, made political choices about how it wanted to regulate the industry. For years after Uber entered the market, it operated without a licence. But in 2016, Quebec launched a pilot project allowing the San Fransisco-based ride-hailing company to operate legally. That project was challenged in court, but its legality was upheld, Cantin said, adding that the 2019 taxi industry reform -- which provided compensation for permit holders -- was never challenged in court. "A law can't be indirectly challenged because you're not satisfied with the money you've received," he said. While Cantin said taxi driving is difficult and Uber made it harder, the decision to abolish the permit system cannot be described as an expropriation because the government never created its own taxi service and taxi drivers can continue to drive taxis. The class action, which was authorized in 2018, seeks at least$400 million for members -- the difference between the estimated 2014 market value of the approximately 7,500 permits and the compensation package Quebec gave to permit holders. The lawsuit is also seeking $1,000 in punitive damages for each member of the group. A separate class-action lawsuit on behalf of Quebec taxi drivers who say they lost revenue as a result of Uber's arrival in Quebec has also been authorized, but a trial date has not yet been set. [GN] RAY'S SMOOTHIES: Garcia Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------- MARIA GARCIA, v. RAY'S SMOOTHIES INC., ANTONIO HERREROS and ANA VERGEL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02234 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of breaching the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from approximately October 2021 until March 16, 2024. Despite the mandatory pay obligations under FLSA and NYLL, the Defendants only compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $10 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff her lawful overtime pay for that period from October 2021 until March 16, 2024, where she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, Defendants have failed to provide her with complete and accurate wage statements throughout her employment listing, among other things, all her regular and any overtime hours of work, her rate of pay, and the basis of pay, says the Plaintiff. Ray's Smoothies Inc. sells juices and smoothies in Bronx, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.25-Mil ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve claims it failed to protect patient information from a 2021 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was compromised in the ReproSource data breach in August 2021 and who received a written notice of the breach in October 2021. According to the class action lawsuit, ReproSource failed to prevent an August 2021 data breach that compromised sensitive patient information such as Social Security numbers and health insurance data. Plaintiffs in the case claim that ReproSource could have prevented the data breach by implementing reasonable cybersecurity measures. ReproSource hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.25 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to $3,000 in reimbursement for data breach losses such as unreimbursed fraudulent charges or identity theft damages, credit expenses, credit monitoring, miscellaneous expenses and up to eight hours of lost time at a rate of $20 per hour for time spent addressing breach-related issues. Alternatively, class members can receive a flat-rate payment estimated to be $50. Class members from California who submit a claim may be entitled to an additional $50 payment. In addition to reimbursement or instead of the flat-rate payment, class members can receive three years of credit monitoring and insurance services. Class members who previously took advantage of credit services offered by ReproSource can receive one additional year of benefits. All payment amounts may be adjusted up or down depending on the amount of actual claims. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 20, 2024. The final approval hearing for the ReproSource data breach settlement is scheduled for July 17, 2024. Class members must submit a valid claim form by June 20, 2024, to receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was compromised in the ReproSource data breach in August 2021 and who received a written notice of the data breach in October 2021 Potential Award $3,000 Proof of Purchase Account statements, receipts, invoices, credit reports and other documentation of data breach losses Claim Form Deadline 06/20/2024 Case Name Bickham, et al. v. ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-11879-GAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 07/17/2024 Settlement Website ReproSourceSettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator -- 181443 c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC PO Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 Tel: (833) 383-4970 Class Counsel Nicholas A Migliaccio Jason S Rathod MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE #302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 George Haines Geraldo Avalos FREEDOM LAW FIRM 8985 S Eastern Ave #100 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Phone: (702) 880-5554 David Pastor PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Email: info@pastorlawoffice.com Phone: (617) 742-9700 Fax: (617) 742-9701 [GN] RESPIRONICS COLORADO: Faces Dillon Suit Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- JERELS DILLON JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESPIRONICS COLORADO, INC. d/b/a Philips Respironics International Colorado, Inc.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA, LLC d/b/a Philips Respironics, Defendants, Case No. 24CI01295 (Ct. Com. Pl., Westmoreland Cty., March 27, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' sensitive personally identifying information, which was compromised during the data breach on or about June 5, 2023. According to a notice letter sent to Plaintiff and Class members on or about February 26, 2024, on behalf of Defendants, the compromised PII included individuals' full names, dates of birth, addresses, policy/account numbers, patient identification numbers, and device/modem serial numbers. Despite that Defendants became aware of the data breach by November 2, 2023, they waited nearly four months before alerting Plaintiff and Class members that their sensitive PII was exposed. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Respironics Colorado is a supplier of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies. The company's subsidiary, Philips RS, brands itself as a global leader in the sleep and respiratory markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - 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 - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479.2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sodha Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- VINOD SODHA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Philip Golubowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Markets, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09767-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Aimee Sodha and Vinod Sodha filed suit against Defendants Robinhood, certain senior executives and directors of Robinhood (Vladimir Tenev, Jason Warnick, Baiju Bhatt, Jan Hammer, Paula Loop, Jonathan Rubinstein, Scott Sandell, and Robert Zoellick), and the underwriters (Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, JMP Securities LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Piper Sandler & Co., Rosenblatt Securities Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., BTIG, LLC, Santander Investment Securities Inc., Academy Securities, Inc., Loop Capital Markets LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc. and Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC). The Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("the Securities Act") alleging that the registration statement and prospectus for Robinhood's July 30, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") contained false and misleading statements and omissions. After the lead Plaintiffs were appointed, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). They alleged that the Offering Documents filed in connection with Robinhood's IPO contained materially false and misleading statements and material omissions. On Aug. 18, 2022, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Edward M. Chen on Feb. 10, 2023. On Mar. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 12, 2023. On Jan. 24, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC. The Court ruled that amendment would be futile because it cannot identify allegations that the Plaintiffs could add to their complaint at this juncture to render their claims viable. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11, 12(a) and 15 claims without leave to amend. The appellate case is captioned Sodha, et al. v. Golubowski, et al., Case No. 24-1036, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 4, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on March 6, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript is due on April 5, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on May 15, 2024; and -- Appellees' Appeal Answering Brief is due on June 17, 2024. [BN] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Appeals Stay Bid Denial in Simon Suit to 9th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to stay in the lawsuit entitled Joshua Simon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-05541-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously stated in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of civil rights. The Plaintiffs allege that the San Francisco Sheriff Office exceeds its authority by imposing electronic monitoring (EM) conditions that violate the United States and California State Constitutions. Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge the four-way search clause and location data sharing conditions contained in the Program Rules. On Feb. 13, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Because the Sheriff Office revised the Program Rules during the pendency of the motions, the Court divided the class into two subclasses, which it certified: the original rules subclass and the revised rules subclass. The Court gave the Defendants fourteen days to cease enforcement of the challenged Program Rules. Accordingly, the deadline for the Defendants to comply with the Court's order is Feb. 27, 2024. On Feb. 16, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to modify or stay in part the preliminary injunction, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar on Feb. 23, 2024. The Court finds that the risk of harm to the Plaintiffs weighs strongly against a stay pending appeal. For the reasons discussed in its prior order, the Court found that the Plaintiffs have established that the Sheriff Office's location sharing rule likely violates class members' constitutional rights. The public interest militates against a stay for this reason. The Court concludes that a stay pending appeal is not warranted in this case. Neither will the Court extend the implementation deadline or otherwise modify the injunction. The Defendants' motion for a partial stay or modification of the injunction is denied. The appellate case is captioned Simon, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 24-1025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2024. [BN] Defendants-Appellants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. are represented by: Scott W. Davenport, Esq. JONES & MAYER 3777 N. Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 SAS RETAIL: Faces Marbley Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ DESMOND MARBLEY, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public, Plaintiff v. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV06509 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 15, 2024) is a representative lawsuit challenging Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices under the California Labor Code. The suit arises from Defendants' policy and practice of failing, among other things, to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks, denying earned wages, including overtime pay, and failing to provide accurate wage statements from January 9, 2023 to the present. In particular, Defendants fail to provide timely and adequate meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and fail to properly and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates, and failed to reimburse for necessary business expenses. The Defendants' compensation scheme did not fully compensate Plaintiff with at least minimum wages and/or designated rates for all hours worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with Defendants in or around July 2023 and was terminated on or around January 3, 2024. Throughout his employment with SAS, Plaintiff was categorized and classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee and maintained the position of Merchandiser throughout his employment with SAS. SAS Retail Services, LLC is in the business of providing merchandising solutions for client retailers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Tamar Chobanian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com tamar@boyamianlaw.com SONDER HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Sonder Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: SOND) resulting from allegations that Sonder may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Sonder securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23643 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 15, 2024, after market hours, Sonder filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing its "audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the "2022 Annual Financial Statements"), and the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in each of the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the [SEC] in 2023 (collectively with the 2022 Annual Financial Statements, the "Affected Financial Statements"), should no longer be relied upon due to accounting errors related to the valuation and impairment of operating lease right of use ("ROU") assets and related items." In addition, Sonder stated "it will not timely file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 (the "FY 2023 10-K") and will file a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC." On this news, Sonder's stock price fell $2.10 per share, or 38.2%, to close at $3.40 per share on March 18, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SPRUCE SERVICES: Saleh Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRUCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00303 (W.D. Tex., March 26, 2024) arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message her even after she has opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff further seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Based in Austin, TX, Spruce Services, Inc. provides lifestyle services including apartment housekeeping services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 STAR PETROLEUM: Fishing Community Files Class Suit Over Oil Spill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pattaya Mail reports that a group of fourteen people from Rayong's fishing communities and small businesses has initiated a class action lawsuit against Star Petroleum Refining Company (SPRC), seeking redress for a significant oil spill in 2022 that they argue has devastated their way of life. The incident, which led to the leakage of at least 50,000 liters of crude oil into the Gulf of Thailand and onto the shores of Rayong on January 25, 2022, has reportedly affected over 2,600 local fishermen. The Rayong Provincial Fisheries Office has reported a severe depletion of fish stocks in the area, rendering much of the local catch unsellable and drastically impacting the fishermen's income. Accompanied by Somchai Armeen, chairman of an environmental cases sub-panel at the Lawyers Council of Thailand, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit at the Civil Court, demanding 4.2 million baht in compensation from SPRC. They claim that the spill has forced many in their community to abandon fishing or to seek fish in more distant waters, significantly altering their traditional livelihoods. The lawsuit also implicates five other entities for violations of environmental protection laws. The representatives belong to a community known as Pak Nam Ban Rao, which includes over 800 members. A favorable court ruling, scheduled for examination on May 17, could set a legal precedent, potentially opening the door for further compensation claims amounting to around 240 million baht against the company. In addition to legal action, the affected groups have appealed to the government for assistance in rehabilitating the local marine ecosystem, highlighting the broader environmental and economic repercussions of the spill. [GN] STATE FARM: 11th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Vehicle Valuation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ C. Allen Garrett Jr., writing for lexology.com, reports that Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP has written about class actions filed against State Farm and other carriers alleging systematic undervaluation of damaged vehicles. One of our articles focused on a decision by the Middle District of Georgia dismissing putative class claims against State Farm based on the class representative's failure to comply with an "appraisal" process -- a process required by the policy in the event the insured disputed State Farm's initial calculation of the "actual cash value" of the covered vehicle. See Middle District of Georgia dismisses putative class action against State Farm for failure to (ktslaw.com). But the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed that decision, finding that the policy did not require the policyholder to provide notice of its disagreement with State Farm regarding the vehicle's valuation before filing suit. Cudd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 22-13916, 2024 WL 65998 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024). The district court's decision focused on language in the policy stating "‘[i]f there is disagreement [between State Farm and the insured] as to the actual cash value of the covered vehicle, then the disagreement will be resolved by appraisal upon written request' of either party." Cudd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 637 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1340 (M.D. Ga. 2022) (emphasis in original, citation omitted). In the district court's view, the insured "simply chose to ignore the appraisal provision in the policy as if it was superfluous." Id. Because the policy mandated that "‘[l]egal action may not be brought against [State Farm] until there has been full compliance with all the provisions of this policy,'" the insured's "failure to notify State Farm of the disagreement and to comply with the appraisal provision makes this action premature." Id. (citation omitted). On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit agreed "that the Policy's appraisal provision is valid and enforceable." 2024 WL 65998, at *3. The Court of Appeals further rejected the insured's argument that the appraisal is "unenforceable" under Georgia law." Id. (citing McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 637 S.E.2d 27, 29 (Ga. 2006)). But the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's conclusion the appraisal process constituted a "condition precedent" to suit. Id. at *4. In the appellate court's view, "[n]othing in the Policy's appraisal provision language requires the policyholder to notify State Farm if he or she disagrees with its initial valuation of a totaled vehicle's actual cash value before filing suit." Id. Because the policy was "silent on when and how a policyholder is to notify State Farm of an actual-cash-value dispute," the insured "did not violate the Policy simply because he did not notify State Farm of an actual-cash-value dispute before commencing suit." Id. According to the Eleventh Circuit, compliance with the appraisal process to resolve an actual value dispute only becomes "mandatory" after being "requested in writing by either party." Id. Because State Farm had "requested appraisal in writing" after filing of the suit, "the parties must still participate in the Policy's appraisal process now that State Farm has invoked that provision." Id. But that did not mean the suit should have been dismissed, because "appraisal is not a condition precedent to suit." Id. Presumably, the results of the appraisal would constitute relevant evidence in the litigation that the Court of Appeals had ordered to proceed. The Eleventh Circuit did, however, affirm dismissal of the insured's unjust enrichment claim, because a written contract covered the subject matter of the parties' dispute. Id. [GN] STOKE THERAPEUTICS: Carroll Seeks Advance Notice Bylaw Invalidation ------------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN CARROLL, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated stockholders of STOKE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff v. JENNIFER C. BURSTEIN, SETH L. HARRISON, EDWARD M. KAYE, ADRIAN KRAINER, ARTHUR A. LEVIN, GARRY E. MENZEL, JULIE ANNE SMITH, IAN F. SMITH, ARTHUR TZIANABOS, and STOKE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0317 (Del. Ch., March 27, 2024) seeks declaratory relief invalidating the Stoke Therapeutics' Advance Notice Bylaw and asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants. Plaintiff Carroll alleges that the Advance Notice Bylaw contains provisions that serve as an unlawful deterrent to those seeking to meaningfully participate in the nomination process. He claims that the Advance Notice Bylaw effectively 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. Headquartered in Massachusetts, Stoke is a biotechnology company dedicated to addressing the underlying cause of severe diseases by up-regulating protein expression with RNA-based medicines. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Daniel M. 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 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 ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 T-MOBILE USA: May Appeal Pending Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- John Celentano of Inside Towers reports that Illinois U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin ruled last week that T-Mobile (NASDAQ: TMUS) can proceed with an appeal of a class action lawsuit. If it were to be successful, that lawsuit could cost T-Mobile billions of dollars in compensation, Total Telecom reported. The class action lawsuit, brought by seven subscribers of AT&T or Verizon, argues that the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile reduced competition in the wireless market to such an extent that it "forced" AT&T and Verizon to increase their prices. As a consequence, they claim tens to hundreds of millions of consumers are paying more for their wireless services than they would have otherwise. Analysis by Inside Towers Intelligence of U.S. Tier 1 mobile network operator service revenues in the 2016-2023 period, shows that prior to the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, wireless service revenues at both companies were lagging significantly behind those of both AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless. While there were four national MNOs in play prior to the April 1, 2020, merger, neither T-Mobile or Sprint prior to that point had the market presence or market share to compete effectively with either of the top two companies. By integrating its network with Sprint's, the new T-Mobile then became a viable, competitive alternative to both AT&T and Verizon. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation as well as other remedies, which could even include the reversal of the Sprint--T-Mobile merger entirely. In November, courts declined to dismiss the lawsuit at T-Mobile's request, saying that AT&T and Verizon's price increases could "plausibly" be linked to the merger. T-Mobile immediately signaled its intention to appeal the decision, saying that the case's "expansive conception of antitrust standing is unprecedented." The plaintiffs' lawyers, on the other hand, argued that a lengthy appeal process would delay potential compensation and could make dissolving the merger more difficult. They subsequently argued that the case should be put before a jury before an appeal was presented. With Judge Durkin confirming that T-Mobile will be allowed to proceed with its appeal, the company's position is that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged antitrust standing. Total Telecom wrote that antitrust lawyers will be watching the proceedings of the case closely. Federal antitrust law allows consumers to bring private challenges against mergers and acquisitions, but cases arguing that a company's M&A activity had negatively affected a rival's customers are very rare. If allowed to proceed, the case could significantly expand the scope of future antitrust proceedings. [GN] TAQUERIA EMILIO: Gonzales Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- YAHIR GONZALEZ v. TAQUERIA EMILIO 3 CORP (DBA TAQUERIA EMILIO, and ELVIN LOPEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02237 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by Defendants from approximately July 2023 up to the present time, where his primary work duty was as a delivery driver, but he also performed other tasks such as kitchen cleaning and dishwashing. Allegedly, Defendants only compensate Plaintiff at a rate of $11.11 per hour and $695 per week and fail to compensate Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from July 2023 up to the present time, where he works well in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees of Defendants to recover, among other things, unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation. Based in New York, NY, Taqueria Emilio 3 Corp operates a Mexican restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Williams Suit Over Labor Code Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSAMYN WILLIAMS, an individual, in her representative capacity and on behalf of the State of California and fellow Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiffs v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 24SM CV01432 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 26, 2024) seeks to remedy repeated violations by the Defendant of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Williams was employed by Tata Consultancy Services from approximately February 2019 until September 2023, and worked from her home in Los Angeles, CA. She alleges that TCS implements employment policies and practices that discriminate against women in every TCS office in the United States, including those who have worked in California. Such practices resulted in women receiving less compensation than their male counterparts performing the same or substantially similar work, the Plaintiff asserts. TCS is an IT consulting company that is headquartered in Mumbai with its U.S. headquarters in Edison, NJ. It maintains over thirty offices and delivery centers in the United States, including offices in Santa Clara, CA and Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Low, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com TELEFLORA LLC: Cummings Sues Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN CUMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others similary situated, Plaintiff v. TELEFLORA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02511 (C.D. Cal., March 27,2024) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard customers' personally identifiable information and give customers timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence, the Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Teleflora LLC operates over 10,000 member florists throughout the U.S. and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 TIMOTHY PADGETT: Gensey Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER GENSEY and CHRISTINE TIRPAK GENSEY, husband and wife, v. TIMOTHY D. PADGETT, P.A. D/B/A PADGETT LAW GROUP And GREGORY FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-01007-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff Gensey moves the Court for an order certifying the class defined as follows: 1. All Pennsylvania consumers whom PADGETT sued in foreclosure and served with state foreclosure complaints containing the notice: This firm is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. this notice is sent to you in an attempt to collect the indebtedness referred to herein and any information obtained from you will be used for that purpose. 2. All Pennsylvania consumers with mortgage loans serviced by GREGORY FUNDING, LLC, whom PADGETT sued in foreclosure and served with state foreclosure complaints containing the stated notice. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint averring that the Defendant debt collectors, TIMOTHY D. PADGETT, P.A. D/B/A PADGETT LAW GROUP and GREGORY FUNDING, LLC violated the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) banning false, deceptive, or misleading collection conduct. Timothy Padgett provides full service legal advice. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzWcDX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 - and - Sean P. Mays, Esq. THE MAYS LAW FIRM, P.C. 65 W. Street Road, Suite B102 Warminster, PA 18974 Telephone: (215) 792-4321 Facsimile: (215) 792-4321 TRADER JOE'S: Court Narrows Claims in Chocolate-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re Trader Joe's Company Dark Chocolate Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00061-RBM-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to require dismissal of the Swiss Bar, although the issue may be revisited if the case proceeds to class certification. The Plaintiffs allege "contrary to the Defendant's assurances that its Products are manufactured under strict quality standards, the Products have been shown to contain detectable levels of Heavy Metals which are known to pose human health risks." The Plaintiffs allege Defendant has known about Heavy Metals in it dark chocolate products since 2014 when testing done by a non-profit consumer group "informed Defendant that its dark chocolate products contained levels of cadmium and lead." Trader Joe's is a chain of neighborhood grocery stores. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nLTXp6 at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSFORM SEARS: Hoffman Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW HOFFMAN, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSFORM SEARS HOME SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-at-00380 (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2024) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Hoffman was employed by Defendant, including in the time period of about 2018 to July 14, 2023. His work duties included service calls to Defendant's customers, which included driving a company vehicle to and from customer's locations. However, Defendant had and has a policy and practice of eliminating 70 minutes of working time from Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' recorded working time each and every work day in order to account for coming and going time from employees' home to the first work location, and their return home. The Defendant does so even though Plaintiff and these employees spend less time commuting to and from their first work locations. As a result, Defendant underpays Plaintiff every workday, says the suit. The Defendant also violated overtime laws on those occasions when wrongly deducted hours are work hours over 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day, the suit asserts. Transform Sears Home Services offers home appliance repairs and home improvement solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Watson, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Prompt Accessibility for Wheelchair Users ------------------------------------------------------------------ www.bowenislandundercurrent.com reports that for wheelchair users, travelling by using ride-hailing apps, like Uber and Lyft, can be complicated. On March 20, a class action was announced against Uber and Lyft in British Columbia for allegedly not providing service to a wheelchair user. One of the goals of the class action is to bring about systemic change to the companies' practices. In the United States -- where my research into ride hailing apps took place -- lawsuits by wheelchair users or disability organizations against the companies are all too familiar. Sometimes, the outcomes of the suits resulted in payments to riders who were not provided service due to their use of wheelchair. Other times, the rulings attempted to bring systemic changes. In a case that involved wheelchair users in Jackson, Miss. and New Orleans, La., the ruling was in favour of the companies. The class action in B.C. draws attention to issues of accessibility in the transportation service hailed via Uber and Lyft for people with disabilities, in particular wheelchair users. Usable transportation Accessibility issues related to wheelchair use are not about whether the apps are usable. They are also not about whether the apps provide information on accessible routes. Rather, they are about whether the actual transportation service hailed through them is usable. Between 2020 and 2021, I conducted a U.S.-wide survey, where I found that some wheelchair users were satisfied with the service, while others were not. Those who were satisfied cited the ability to see the cost of the ride up front, the door-to-door service and convenience. Others reported experiencing various challenges, including the lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs), being declined service by drivers and long wait times. My study revealed that several factors were associated with the ability to use Uber and Lyft successfully. Wheelchairs and vehicles The type of wheelchair a rider uses affects access. Riders with foldable wheelchairs have better odds of using these services successfully because the wheelchair can be folded and stowed in most vehicles. The majority of the survey respondents who reported they were not Uber and Lyft customers used fixed-frame wheelchairs. Riders who need to remain seated in a wheelchair during travel or use fixed-frame wheelchairs have lower odds of success using the services. They can only travel in WAVs, which are not as commonly available on the apps as four-door sedans used for basic level service. For riders who need WAVs, this can mean long wait times – on average twice more than the wait time for basic service, as I found in my study. It can also mean no service at all. While travellers who use foldable wheelchairs have better odds of obtaining a vehicle that can fit their wheelchair through basic service options, they experience a different kind of challenge. Some of the respondents who used a manual wheelchair reported experiencing withdrawn services -- when the driver declines to take the ride. Other studies report similar experiences. The class action in B.C. is based on the complainant's experience related to shortage or unavailability of WAVs for those with fixed-frame wheelchairs or who need to remain seated during travel. Unavailabilities and shortages Previously, the companies' responses to allegations of discrimination against wheelchair users in the U.S. have been that they are technology companies -- rather than transportation companies -- that connect riders and drivers. Uber used the same argument in a recent case that was brought to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. This configuration means that they do not own a fleet of vehicles but rely on cars that drivers bring. As such, they are not obligated to provide WAVs. In Washington, D.C., for instance, taxi companies that own at least 20 vehicles are required that a percentage of their fleet consist of WAVs. There is no equivalent requirement for Uber and Lyft. The companies have provided WAV ride options on their apps in select cities primarily by forming partnerships with third-party transportation companies. UberWAV began in 2018 and Lyft Access in 2019 in Toronto, Washington, D.C., the San Francisco Bay Area and other larger markets. These services are not available in many other cities, and wheelchair users seeking WAV rides are directed to either local taxis or paratransit services offered by transit agencies or municipal governments. However, directing wheelchair users to other services by providing a list of accessible options is not considered equivalent to the service the companies offer to non-disabled travellers. Supply and regulations The companies say that in the cities where they do not operate WAV services, there is not enough supply of WAVs. Disability advocates disagree, saying that the lack of WAV services has to do with the lack of disability regulations in those areas. In markets where Uber and Lyft have WAV service options on their apps, there is a shortage of WAVs. For drivers, there is little financial incentive in purchasing these vehicles to work on the Uber and Lyft apps. The vehicles are more expensive to purchase, insure, run and maintain than cars used for basic service level. Individuals who have access to WAVs for personal or family use may not sign up to drive on the apps. Accessibility modifications to WAVs are unique to the user and may not be suitable for all. People with disabilities travel in personal cars as passengers. As I found in my study, many wheelchair users do not drive or own a driver's licence due to their disability. Someone who is responsible for transporting a family member with disability may not have the availability to drive for a ride hailing service. Wheelchair users who drive WAVs may not be able to assist a passenger in a wheelchair during vehicle entry and exit and securing wheelchair restraint inside the vehicle. At the root of the WAV service wars is the companies' platform business model as technology companies connecting service seekers and providers. This three-party configuration -- composed of users, providers and platforms -- has been an obstacle to regulate these companies in general. Any systemic improvement will need to address that. Providing accessible services While an overhaul of the existing configuration may not be possible in the short term, changes to the companies' business model or current disability accommodation practices or lack thereof maybe inevitable. The lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada demonstrate that people with disabilities will continue to ask for services that meet their needs. My research shows that even wheelchair users who are currently unable to use Uber and Lyft see promise in a convenient, on-demand transportation service hailed through the apps. The companies can meet them halfway. Or the courts might bring them there -- eventually. [GN] WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Ezricare Artificial Tears -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that Walmart class action claims Ezricare artificial tears contaminated with bacteria. Who: Plaintiff Joseph Lopez filed a class action lawsuit against Ezricare LLC and Walmart Inc. Why: The Walmart class action alleges that Ezricare artificial tears eye drops are contaminated with a drug-resistant bacteria, potentially posing a significant health risk to consumers. Where: The Ezricare bacteria class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. Ezricare artificial tears products may be contaminated with a rare, drug-resistant bacteria potentially posing a significant health risk to consumers, according to a recent Walmart class action lawsuit. Plaintiff Joseph Lopez claims that Ezricare artificial tears, sold by Walmart, are contaminated with "a rare, extensively drug-resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria." Pseudomonas aeruginosa can reportedly cause severe eye, lung, skin and other infections in humans. The Ezricare bacteria outbreak allegedly began in May 2022 and has been linked to cases in at least a dozen states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Fifty-five individuals have reportedly been infected by Ezricare bacteria. Three have reportedly experienced permanent vision loss, and others have required extensive treatment of their infections. One person died due to a systemic infection, according to the Walmart Ezricare class action lawsuit. Walmart class action: CDC investigation leads to Ezricare artificial tears recall On Jan. 24, 2023, Ezricare issued a statement notifying consumers that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was investigating adverse events potentially related to Ezricare artificial tears eye drops. The eye drops were recalled shortly after this announcement, Lopez says. The Walmart class action claims the Ezricare bacteria contamination is due to the failure of Ezricare and Walmart to conduct appropriate microbial testing and lack of proper controls related to tamper-evident packaging. Lopez says he purchased Ezricare artificial tears from a Walmart Supercenter in July 2022 under the assumption that the product was unadulterated, safe and effective. He claims he would not have purchased the product, or he would not have paid as much for it, had he known about the potential Ezricare bacteria contamination. He filed the Walmart class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and New York subclass of consumers who purchased allegedly contaminated Ezricare artificial tears products. An Amazon class action lawsuit filed last summer alleges a woman had to have an eye removed after using contaminated Ezricare artificial tears she purchased from Amazon.com. Lopez is represented by Charles D. Moore and Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC. The Ezricare class action lawsuit is Joseph Lopez v. Ezricare LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02016, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] WALMART INC: Williams Sues Over Mislabeled Acne Cream Products -------------------------------------------------------------- SKYLAR WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02173 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2024) is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing and sale of Equate brand acne cream and gel products that contain the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Illinois Subclass Members reasonably relied upon Defendant's representation that the Products were safe for personal use and, due to Defendant's omission of the presence of benzene in the Products, the Plaintiff read and relied on Defendant's labeling to conclude that the Products were not contaminated with any dangerous substance, including benzene. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as set forth in this case, Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass Members have suffered ascertainable losses of money caused by Defendant's unfair conduct of selling adulterated, misbranded, and illegally sold Products, and its misrepresentations and material omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products, says the suit. Walmart, Inc. markets, distributes, and sells Equate Acne Treatment Gel and Equate Acne Cleanser Cream. Defendant Walmart markets, distributes and sells the aforementioned Products to consumers throughout the United States through their brick-and-mortar locations and online through Defendant's website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Russell M. Busch, 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 rbusch@milberg.com - and = Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861 E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, 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: pfraietta@bursor.com WALT DISNEY: Carano Files Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- www.bamlawca.com reports that in recent news, Gina Carano filed a wrongful termination lawsuit after being fired from Disney's The Mandalorian. In an interesting twist, problematic social media posts instigated her termination, but another social media post led to her ability to seek resolution through the legal system. The Case: Gina Carano v. The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc. The Court: US District Court for the Central District of California The Case No.: S2:2024cv01009 THE PLAINTIFF: CARANO V. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY The plaintiff in the case, Gina Carano, is a former Disney+ "The Mandalorian" actor. Carano played the former Rebellion soldier Cara Dune during two seasons. After Carano shared problematic social media posts in 2021, Lucasfilm announced they no longer employed Carano. In response to the abrupt dismissal, Carano filed a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in California federal court seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages and reinstatement as Dune in "The Mandalorian" series. Carano seeks a jury trial. Elon Musk funds Carano's wrongful termination lawsuit through X (formerly known as Twitter). THE DEFENDANTS: CARANO V. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY The defendants in the case, the Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc., took action against Carano after a February 2021 Instagram post (since deleted) making an implied comparison between being a conservative in the modern setting to being Jewish during the Holocaust. Before this, she was called out for other right-wing social media posts stating opinions about the 2020 presidential election, mask requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic, and opinions regarding other people's declared pronouns that incited critics to declare her racist or transphobic and demanding that Disney/Lucasfilm fire her from "The Mandalorian." THE CASE: CARANO V. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY While problematic social media posts instigated the original incident, a different type of social media post led to the filing of Carano v. The Walt Disney Company. Legal counsel for X reached out to Carano after she responded to one of Elon Musk's posts offering to help individuals who lost their jobs based on activity on the social media platform. X hired legal counsel to look into Carano's story and assist her in seeking an appropriate resolution. X states they support Carano's suit as a sign of their commitment to free speech. If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. [GN] WELLNOW URGENT: Maguire-Whipple Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN MAGUIRE-WHIPPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLNOW URGENT CARE, P.C. and ADMI CORP. d/b/a TAG - THE ASPEN GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02183 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2024) is a class action arising out of Defendants' failures to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendants' data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendants' network that, upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The data breach occurred on or about April 25, 2023, and Defendant WellNow began sending notice letters to Class members on or about February 22, 2024. The complaint asserts that Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the data breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (iv) unjust enrichment and (v) breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The Plaintiff has received medical service in the past at a WellNow healthcare facility. WELLNOW URGENT CARE P.C. is a conglomerate of walk-in urgent care clinics that serve as alternatives to emergency rooms across Upstate New York.[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 - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERG 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com WELLS FARGO: Faces New Class Action Overcharging Servicemen ----------------------------------------------------------- James Kinoti, writing for msn.com, reports that a new class action lawsuit has been filed against banking giant Wells Fargo, accusing the institution of overcharging thousands of customers on credit card interest rates and fees for over a decade. The lawsuit, brought forth by plaintiffs Carmin Nowlin, Tamika Haley, and Jesus Rodriguez, alleges that Wells Fargo charged active US military service members interest rates and fees that exceeded the limits set by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Allegations of SCRA violations The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) mandates that any debts incurred by service members before being called to active duty must have their interest rates reduced to 6%. Furthermore, banks are required to permanently forgive interest exceeding this rate. However, according to the plaintiffs, Wells Fargo engaged in a pattern of overcharging military service members despite marketing itself to this demographic, particularly those deployed overseas. The plaintiffs assert that Wells Fargo breached its statutory and contractual duties to service members and engaged in deceptive practices by concealing overcharges and SCRA violations. The bank allegedly allowed unlawful charges to inflate servicemembers' principal balances and even applied compound interest to these inflated amounts. Moreover, the plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo continued these practices nationwide for over a decade while concealing the violations from affected military families. Wells Fargo's response and previous legal troubles Currently, Wells Fargo has not stated the allegations in the lawsuit. This legal action adds to the recent lawsuits and complaints the banking giant has faced. Among these is a case involving a customer who reported that Wells Fargo failed to address the theft of thousands of dollars from her account, leaving her in limbo for seven months. The class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo underscores the serious allegations of overcharging and deceptive practices targeting military service members. While the bank has yet to respond publicly to these accusations, its history of legal troubles raises concerns about its practices and treatment of customers. As the case unfolds, affected service members and consumers eagerly await clarity and accountability from one of the nation's largest financial institutions. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Goldovsky Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX GOLDOVSKY, GLYNN FRECHETTE, JOHN KRUPEY, and KRISTIN SCHARF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAURICIO J. RAULD, PREMIER LAW GROUP, TIMOTHY B. GERTZ, PV ADVISORS, PLC d/b/a PROVISION and d/b/a PROVISION WEALTH STRATEGIST, CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00159 (W.D. Tex., March 27, 2024) seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated who invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. The Plaintiffs assert claims for statutory fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty, and for violations of the Texas Securities Act. They allege that Defendants defrauded them and other investors in the Ponzi scheme by selling unregistered securities from, by and through Texas, in transactions that emanated from Texas. Allegedly, Defendants sold these unregistered securities by making untrue statements to the investors about the unregistered securities, and by omissions that made their statements misleading, the Plaintiffs say. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association that offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick Zummo, Esq. Lisa Gerling Zummo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK ZUMMO 950 Echo Lane, Suite 333 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 651-0590 E-mail: pzummo@zoomlaw.com lzummo@zoomlaw.com WHALECO INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Eakins Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Whaleco, Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 5, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled Valerie Eakins, individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WHALECO INC. d/b/a TEMU, Case No. 5:23-CV-00560-J, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma-Oklahoma City. The case was removed from the District Court of Washita County, State of Oklahoma, to the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on June 26, 2023. The Plaintiff's single-count Petition seeks relief from Defendant, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated persons, for allegedly "sending automated commercial telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to her cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Oklahoma" in violation of Oklahoma's Telephone Solicitation Act. On November 15, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration which the Court denied on March 5, 2024 through an Order signed by Judge Bernard M. Jones. The appellate case is captioned as Whaleco, Inc. v. Valerie Eakins, Case No. 24-6048, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2024.[BN] Defendant-Appellant WHALECO, INC., DBA TEMU, is represented by: John Alfred Burkhardt, Jr., Esq. SCHAFFER HERRING LAW FIRM 7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 550-8105 - and - Robert A. Stines, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP 201 N Franklin Street, Suite 3550 Tampa, FL 33602 Plaintiff-Appellee VALERIE EAKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by" Mary Quinn Cooper, Esq. Kathy R. Neal, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT Two West Second Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 587-0000 - and - Edwin Powell Miller, Esq. 950 West University Drive #300 Rochester, MI 48307-0000 Telephone: (248) 652-2852 WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Job Postings Lack Wage Info, Yount Says --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE YOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as WILLIAMS SONOMA, POTTERY BARN, POTTERY BARN KIDS, and WEST ELM; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-06599-7 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., March 26, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act. Plaintiff Yount brings this class action on behalf of individuals who applied to job openings with Defendant where the job postings to which they responded did not include the wage scale or salary range being offered in direct violation of EPOA. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation that owns and operates stores selling premium kitchenware and housewares. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com [*] Levine Law Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference ---------------------------------------------------------- Levine Law, LLC is a sponsor of the Class Action Money & Ethics Conference this May. Levine Law -- https://lawlevine.com/ -- is a third-generation law firm providing legal representation in California, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. It specializes in Personal Injury, Probate Estate, Medicaid Planning, Business Planning, Real Estate Closing, Estate Planning and Criminal Defense. Call (724) 658-5596 for the "People of PA's Lawyer." Join Levine Law and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024. Registration is now open. View conference agenda at https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html This one-day event is also being sponsored by: * Atticus Administration, LLC; * Broadridge, a global Fintech company; * Darrow.ai; * Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an Am Law 100 firm; * Duane Morris LLP, an Am Law 100 firm; * Giftogram; * Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP; * Hook Point; * Miller Kaplan Arase LLP; * Parabellum Capital LLC * Simpluris; and * Tremendous, a payouts platform CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club. To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com [*] Miller Kaplan Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference ------------------------------------------------------------- Miller Kaplan Arase LLP is a sponsor of the Class Action Money & Ethics Conference this May. Miller Kaplan -- https://www.millerkaplan.com/ -- is one of the top certified public accounting firms in the United States, providing accounting, audit, business management, tax, and consulting services, with locations in Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif.; Seattle, Wash.; Denver, Co.; and Hailey, Idaho. Join Miller Kaplan and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024. Registration is now open. View conference agenda at https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html This one-day event is also being sponsored by: * Atticus Administration, LLC; * Broadridge, a global Fintech company; * Darrow.ai; * Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an Am Law 100 firm; * Duane Morris LLP, an Am Law 100 firm; * Giftogram; * Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP; * Hook Point; * Levine Law, LLC; * Parabellum Capital LLC * Simpluris; and * Tremendous, a payouts platform CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club. To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com [*] Parabellum Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference ---------------------------------------------------------- Parabellum Capital LLC is a sponsor of the Class Action Money & Ethics Conference this May. A pioneer in litigation finance, New York-based Parabellum -- https://www.parabellumcap.com/ -- partners with claimants by providing risk-free capital solutions for the prosecution of commercial claims. Join Parabellum and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024. Registration is now open. View conference agenda at https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html This one-day event is also being sponsored by: * Atticus Administration, LLC; * Broadridge, a global Fintech company; * Darrow.ai; * Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an Am Law 100 firm; * Duane Morris LLP, an Am Law 100 firm; * Giftogram; * Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP; * Hook Point; * Levine Law, LLC; * Miller Kaplan Arase LLP; * Simpluris; and * Tremendous, a payouts platform CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club. To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com [^] 2024 Class Action Conference Agenda --------------------------------------- Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference to be held next month in Manhattan. This year's event is led by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP; and Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, as conference chairs. The agenda for CAME 2024 are: (A) State of the Industry: Class Action Review Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley of Duane Morris will present key findings from their inaugural Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2024. Their one-of-a- kind publication provides an analysis of class action trends impacting Corporate America, including, Class Action Fairness Act, mass appeals, consumer fraud, data breaches and more. (B) The Ethics of Wiretapping and Data Privacy Class Actions David Bertoni (Moderator), Partner, Brann & Isaacson; Kelly Iverson, Partner, Lynch Carpenter; Terence "Terry" Coates, Managing Partner, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco; David Lietz, Senior Partner, Milberg; and Max Bernstein, Associate, Cooley, will delve into the moral intricacies of wiretapping and data privacy class actions; explore legal, ethical, and technological dimensions, weighing individual rights against security needs; and navigate through case studies, ethical dilemmas, and corporate responsibilities, while scrutinizing the global landscape of privacy regulations. (C) Maximizing Financial Strategy: Exploring Qualified Settlement Funds Nicholas Sanchez (Moderator), Partner, Miller Kaplan; Eric Gladbach, Partner, King & Spalding; Justin Parks, Vice President, AB Data; Amy Gernon, Founder, Gernon Law; and Michael O'Connor, Senior Vice President, Western Alliance Bank, will discuss the complexities of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) and tax implications in class actions; analyze strategies for maximizing benefits, minimizing tax liabilities, and ensuring compliance; and navigate through legal nuances, financial considerations, and practical insights for attorneys, plaintiffs, and stakeholders. (D) The Double-Edged Sword: TCPA and Email Restrictions in Case Notifications Christopher Longley (Moderator), Co-Founder & CEO, Atticus Administration; Christopher Roberts, Partner, Butsch Roberts & Associates; Jessica Ranucci, Attorney, New York Legal Assistance Group; and Bryn Bridley, Director of Project Management at Atticus, will examine the intricate balance between TCPA regulations and email restrictions in case notifications; navigate through legal pitfalls, compliance challenges, and best practices for effective communication; and explore strategies for optimizing outreach while mitigating risks and respecting recipients' privacy rights. (E) Luncheon Roundtable Discussion: Resolution of Mass Tort Claims in Bankruptcy Join esteemed judges -- Hon. Michael Kaplan, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, District of New Jersey; the Hon. Shelley Chapman (Ret.), Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; and the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.), Partner, Otterbourg P.C. -- for an intimate roundtable on resolving mass tort claims in bankruptcy as they delve into legal intricacies, precedents, and ethical considerations shaping outcomes; and explore strategies for balancing creditor rights, public interests, and equitable distribution, fostering dialogue and insights over a luncheon setting. Chad Husnick, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, moderates. (F) Comparative Class Action Funding: a Multi-Jurisdictional Examination Dai Wai Chin Freman (Moderator), Managing Director, Parabellum Capital; Kyle Taylor, Partner, Orr Taylor; Luke Streatfeild, Partner, Hausfeld; Michael Dell'Angelo, Executive Shareholder, Berger Montague; and Manuel "John" Dominguez, Partner, Cohen Milstein, discuss different class actions funding models, exploring the benefits and drawbacks of various models, as well as explore whether the US model is ripe for disruption. (G) Fraud in Class Actions Ross Weiner (Moderator), Legal Director, Certum Group; Rebecca Gilliland, Principal, Beasley Allen; Kyle Mason, Director, EisnerAmper; Franco Corrado, Partner, Morgan Lewis; Jeff Wilkerson, Partner, Winston & Strawn; and Etia Rottman Frand, Head of Sales, Darrow, tackle the complexities of detecting and addressing fraud in class actions; explore case studies, legal precedents, and emerging trends; discuss strategies for safeguarding integrity, ensuring fair outcomes, and upholding justice within class action litigation; and delve into ethical considerations and practical measures for combating fraudulent practices. (H) ESG Litigation From A Securities Perspective Eric Zagar (Moderator), Partner, Kessler Topaz; Lauren Wagner, Counsel, O'Melveny; and Minor Myers, Professor of Law, UConn Law School, dive into the intersection of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors with securities litigation; explore evolving regulations, shareholder activism, and fiduciary duties; and dissect recent cases, analyze market trends, and propose strategies for navigating ESG-related risks and opportunities within the securities landscape. (I) The Revolution of Lead Generation in Mass Tort With Cutting Edge AI and Marketing Tools Erin Mulvaney (Moderator), Reporter, The Wall Street Journal; Brendan Kane, Founder, Hook Point; Rustin Silverstein, President and Founder, X Ante; and Christopher Ege, Partner, Gordon, Rees, Scully, Mansukhani, explore the transformative impact of AI and marketing tools on mass tort lead generation; discuss data-driven strategies, predictive analytics and ethical considerations; and how innovative technologies are reshaping legal marketing, enhancing client acquisition, and revolutionizing mass tort litigation. CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club. To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action industry for this one-day event. Conference agenda is subject to change. Additional panels and speakers will be added leading up to the conference. Check back frequently for updates! For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Defends PI Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Advance Auto Parts, Inc.'s Western Auto subsidiary, together with other defendants (including Advance and other of its subsidiaries), has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs have alleged that certain products contained asbestos and were manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the various defendants. Many of the cases pending against us are in the early stages of litigation. While the damages claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are substantial, we believe many of these claims are at least partially covered by insurance and historically asbestos claims against us have been inconsistent in fact patterns alleged and immaterial. We do not believe the cases currently pending will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. "On January 17, 2024, a derivative shareholder complaint was commenced against our directors and certain former officers alleging derivative liability for the allegations made in the securities class action complaints noted above. This case is still in preliminary stages. We strongly dispute the allegations of the complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7qYQ5c ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 372 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Natura &Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon Products, Inc., has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products the company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, there were 372 individual cases pending against the subsidiary Avon (during the year ended December 31, 2023, 234 new cases were started and 90 were dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved)." A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DYDvRD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., continues to receive claims under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Environmental claims typically assert liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of environmental contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage caused by the release of hazardous substances into the land, air or water. Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos. "The Company's reserves include an estimate of the Company's ultimate liability for A&E claims. The Company's A&E liabilities emanate from direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed reinsurance business. All of the contracts of insurance and reinsurance, under which the Company has received claims during the past three years, expired more than 20 years ago. There are significant uncertainties surrounding the Company's reserves for its A&E losses." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EtZDIU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $10.7MM Net Loss Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- Global Indemnity Group, LLC, as of December 31, 2023, has recorded $10.7 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and $10.4 million for environmental claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. Currently, the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental contamination claims. However, in some states, the Company is required, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to a release of chemicals. The Company has also issued policies that were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental coverage. These policies were specific to certain types of products underwritten by the Company. The Company has also received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which are declined based on well-established exclusions. In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations. Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated continually. Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims. Other emerging mass torts with long latency periods also contribute to the uncertainty in the estimated ultimate environmental liability. The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects Management's best estimates for future amounts needed to pay losses and related loss adjustment expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tWOOp0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,510 Exposure Cases Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Graybar Electric Company, Inc., with respect to asbestos litigation, as of December 31, 2023, has reported 3,510 individual cases and 61 multiple-plaintiff cases pending alleging actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by them, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Moreover, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these uncertainties, we believe that our asbestos reserves represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes, over an extended period of time, less than or equal to recorded corresponding anticipated recoverable insurance proceeds. As part of the process to develop these off-setting estimates of future asbestos costs and insurance proceeds, a range of long-term cost and recovery models of future asbestos costs was developed. These models are based on national studies that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos related diseases and are influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and defense costs, as well as other variables previously mentioned. Because any of these factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future periods." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jFFmXK ********* 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 ***