/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240416.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 16, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 77 Headlines AGILON HEALTH: Pension Fund Sues Over Securities Act Violations ALL WAYS CARING: Barrios Suit Removed to C.D. California ALLEN HOTEL: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Notice Terminated in Kronenberg AMAZON SERVICES: Must File Non-Opposition Statement in Boone Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Peterson Sues Over Deceptive Ad-Free Prime Video ANAVEX LIFE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 13, 2024 AT&T INC: Faces Multiple Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach CANADA: Court Quashes Summonses on Injured Workers' Class Suit CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit COINBASE INC: Circuit Court Revives Illegal Contracts Class Action COLUMBUS, IN: Judge Sets Hearing Date for Data Privacy Class Suit EDISONLEARNING INC: Svoboda Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions FRAME AUTO: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices HERITAGE PLACE: Singh Files Suit Over Late, Unpaid Wages HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit HOME DEPOT: Faces Putative Class Action Over Spy Tracking Pixels HOTEL FIGUEROA: Ibarra Sues Over Worker Retention Law Violations J-M MANUFACTURING: Summary Judgment Reply in Cambridge Due May 23 J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 3 KOLD TRANS: Courts OKs Ex Parte Application to Stay Hamilton Action L'OREAL USA: Acne Foam Cream Contains Carcinogen, Painter Says LENOVO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Volinsky Class Suit LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Suit Seeks To Certify Class Employees LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadlines LINCARE INC: Class Certification Bid in Morris Extended to May 6 LINCOLN LIFE: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Vida Partly OK'd MAYO CLINIC: Faces Class Action Over Employee Health Plans NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Inflated Commission Rates' Suit Certified NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Brantmeier Sues Over Antitrust Class Action NEW YORK, NY: To Pay $17.5MM to Settle "Hijab" Class Action Suit NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Certifies Privacy Class Action NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Greenwashing Class Action Lawsuit NUSTAR ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Probes Proposed Sale PROCTER & GAMBLE: May Face Detergent Pod Recall Class Action Suit PROCTER & GAMBLE: To Defend Suit Over Mislabeled Hair Care Products S.C. JOHNSON: Voluntary Dismissal of Garvey Suit Disapproved SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder Class Action SELECT SOURCE: Faces Class Action Over FCRA and ICRAA Violations SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Circuit Court Affirms Class Suit Dismissal SOUTHLAND TRANSIT: Vasquez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices STAR TRIBUNE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $2.9MM TEVA CANADA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Appeal for Class Action Cert TICKETMASTER CANADA: Court Approves Insurance Class Suit Settlement TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Appeal In Ticketbots Suit TKO SHELBY: Trial Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action TUSCANY 38: Salazar Sues Over Unpaid Wages UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over RICO Act Violations WALMART INC: Deadline to Submit Claims for Cash Payment Set June 5 YETI COOLERS: Disclosed Private, Personal Info, Smith Says [*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Filings Rose in 2023 ********* AGILON HEALTH: Pension Fund Sues Over Securities Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGILON HEALTH, INC., STEVEN J. SELL, TIMOTHY S. BENSLEY, PRISCILLA KASENCHAK, RONALD A. WILLIAMS, SHARAD MANSUKANI, DIANA L. MCKENZIE, KAREN MCLOUGHLIN, CLAY RICHARDS, RAVI SACHDEV, RICHARD J. SCHNALL, JEFFREY A. SCHWANEKE, DEREK L. STRUM, WILLIAM WULF, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, LEERINK PARTNERS f/k/a SVB SECURITIES LLC, TRUIST SECURITIES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC, SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, WR SECURITIES, LLC, CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE, LLC, CD&R VECTOR HOLDINGS, L.P., CD&R INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES IX, LTD., and CD&R ASSOCIATES IX, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00297 (W.D. Tex., March 19, 2024) is a federal securities class action asserting both strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and fraud-based claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from Defendants' alleged materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors concerning agilon's medical costs and profit margins. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period and in the May 2023 secondary public offering Materials, the Defendants misled investors about agilon's medical costs by: (1) touting the Company's purported visibility into utilization trends and medical costs; (2) failing to disclose increased medical costs that agilon had incurred prior to and during the Class Period due to higher utilization of healthcare by Medicare Advantage patients; (3) falsely stating that its incurred-but-not-reported reserve was adequate; (4) making false and misleading statements about the effectiveness of its business model; (5) issuing overly optimistic financial guidance; and (6) issuing risk disclosures that were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities. Because of these materially false and misleading statements and omissions, agilon stock traded at artificially high prices during the Class Period as investors were conditioned to believe that the Company's medical cost expenses were lower than represented. In May 2023, Defendants took advantage and profited enormously by selling hundreds of millions worth of their agilon stock through the SPO at the inflated price of $21.50 per share. As a result of these disclosures, the prices of agilon common stock dropped significantly causing substantial damages to the Company's investors, the suit asserts. Plaintiff New England Teamsters provides pension and other benefits for union members. The Plaintiff purchased shares of agilon common stock during the Class Period. Founded in 2016, agilon's business is based on building partnerships with private insurance companies who cover Medicare Advantage patients, traditional Medicare payers, commercial managed care payers, and primary care physician groups.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com ALL WAYS CARING: Barrios Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carmen Barrios, and others similarly situated v. ALL WAYS CARING HEALTH CARE; BRIGHT SPRING HEALTH SERVICES; RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05497 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02774. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: "Failure to compensate for all hours worked; Failure to pay minimum wages; Failure to pay overtime; Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; Failure to pay wages when employment ends; Failure to pay wages owed every pay period; Failure to give rest breaks; Failure to give meal breaks; Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); Failure to reimburse for business expenses; Retaliation in violation of Labor Code; Wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and Violation of California Business and Professions Code."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex M. Barfield, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Phone: 213.430.3400 Fax: 213.430.3409 Email: alex.barfield@tuckerellis.com ALLEN HOTEL: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Allen Hotel, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Allen Hotel, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02577 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allen Hotel -- https://www.theallenhotel.com/ -- features 41 modern guest rooms and luxurious suites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Notice Terminated in Kronenberg ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kronenberg v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06899 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 4, 2018), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order motion to certify class. -- The notice of motion for class certification and proposed order are terminated. -- The Court will consider the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, including any papers in support thereof. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage.[CC] AMAZON SERVICES: Must File Non-Opposition Statement in Boone Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boone, et al., v. Amazon Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00241 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order that the Defendant will file a statement of non-opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Additionally, no later than April 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall file an amended proposed notice of settlement and a supplemental brief addressing the following: (1) designation of class representatives; (2) Rule 23 conditional class certification for settlement purposes; (3) procedures for class notice; (4) a summary or cursory lodestar for anticipated attorneys' fees; (5) documentation of costs; (6) appointment of Rust Consulting as Settlement Administrator; and (7) information supporting proposed enhancement payments to the class representatives. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving collection of unpaid wages.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Peterson Sues Over Deceptive Ad-Free Prime Video ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY PETERSON, ASHLEY SCARBOROUGH, DALEENE FOX, PORSCHE HOLMES, LAURA SMITH, SHARON CROSSWHITE, SARAH FRAZEE, KELLY SLOVENKAY, OLIVER TSUYA, and KATRINA ERICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00364 (W.D. Wash., March 19, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs in connection with Amazon's recent unilateral imposition of new fees for previously commercial-free video streaming services that were unfairly foisted upon existing Amazon Prime subscribers. Amazon's service, called Prime Video, has, since 2011, provided commercial-free video content, deriving its revenue primarily from its subscription base, which as of 2022 numbered in excess of 200 million users. In January 2024, Amazon introduced advertisements to its previously commercial-free content. In connection with that change, subscribers were required to pay a fee of $2.99 per month in order to avoid the commercials. For those annual subscribers like Plaintiffs, the imposition of a $2.99 monthly fee to enjoy a commercial-free viewing experience -- a benefit that they had already paid for in their annual subscriptions -- not only constitutes a breach of contract by Amazon, but also a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW Chapter 19.86, as well as of the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes of virtually every other state in the country, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. doing business as Amazon, is an American multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David B. Richardson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. RICHARDSON, P.S. 3829 S. Edmunds St., Suite C. Seattle, WA 98118 Telephone: (425) 646-9801 E-mail: david@dbrlaw.com - and - David J. DiSabato, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com ddisabato@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com ANAVEX LIFE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 13, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Anavex Life Sciences Corporation (NASDAQ: AVXL). Shareholders who purchased shares of AVXL during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/anavex-life-sciences-loss-submission-form/?id=74260&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: February 1, 2022 to January 1, 2024 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that on December 2, 2022, AVXL announced positive topline results from its Phase 2b/3 ANAVEX(R)2-73-AD-004 clinical trial of oral ANAVEX(R)2-73 (blarcamesine) for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild AD (collectively known as early AD). ANAVEX(R)2-73 met the primary endpoints ADAS-Cog1 and ADCS-ADL2 and key secondary endpoint CDR-SB3 with statistically significant results. An analyst questioned the Company's claim noting "there are several key factors that point us to believe the data is provocative, but not yet compelling, given the choice of statistical analyses and other trial design/conduct 'complexifiers'." Additionally, a biotech journalist commented on AVXL's findings stating "[w]hat sets Anavex apart from all the other biotechs on my radar screen is its habit of shifting the goalposts on clinical trials . . . Anavex announced "positive" outcomes from studies of its drug called blarcamesine -- except the results were derived from efficacy endpoints that were not part of the original study designs." Following this news, AVXL's stock price fell by $2.47 per share, or approximately 20% to close at $9.58. Further on January 3, 2024, AVXL announced that results from its Phase 2/3 EXCELLENCE clinical trial for its candidate ANAVEX(R)2-73 in pediatric patients with Rett syndrome failed to show statistical significance towards its primary endpoints. Biotech analysts commented that "the negative study outcome was never in doubt . . . Anavex is a serial dissembler of clinical trial results." Following this news, AVXL's stock price fell by $3.26 per share, or approximately 35%. DEADLINE: May 13, 2024 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/anavex-life-sciences-loss-submission-form/?id=74260&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of AVXL during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is May 13, 2024. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] AT&T INC: Faces Multiple Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- SC Media reprots that AT&T has been hit with a deluge of class-action lawsuits following a series of denials the legitimacy of data belonging to 73 million customers, including 7.6 million current account holders, which was initially published by ShinyHunters in 2021 before being exposed again by MajorNelson last month, BleepingComputer reports. One of the complaints led by Morgan & Morgan on behalf of Patricia Dean and other plaintiffs claimed that AT&T's denials regarding the massive data breach and its lack of security measures have resulted in significant security risks for the telecommunications provider's customers. AT&T has also been accused of violating implied contract and negligence, which should be addressed with compensation, injunctive relief, more robust audits, and improved data security protocols. "We allege AT&T knew about the vulnerability that allegedly led to this breach, but allowed it to occur by failing to act. We're also alleging AT&T exacerbated the problem by failing to acknowledge the breach had occurred until March 30 of this year, allowing customers' personal data to linger in criminal hands without their knowledge for more than two-and-a-half years," said Morgan & Morgan. [GN] CANADA: Court Quashes Summonses on Injured Workers' Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Law Times News, reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently quashed two summonses to government officials who were non-parties in a case involving self-represented injured workers. The workers are part of a proposed class action against entities managing workers' compensation regimes in Canada, advocating for a transition to a no-fault system. They asserted that the current schemes are unconstitutional. The Attorney General of Ontario, representing non-parties Monte McNaughton, the former Ontario minister of labour, immigration, training and skills development, and Margaret Townsend, the director of the Office of the Worker Advisors (OWA), filed a motion to quash the summonses. The plaintiffs contested this motion. The plaintiffs, led by Paul Taylor, had issued summonses to McNaughton and Townsend to bolster their case for mandating the OWA to provide free legal representation. This action forms a significant part of their broader legal challenge against Canada's workers' compensation systems. The Superior Court's decision focused on the applicability of rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires legal representation for parties in a representative capacity in class actions. The core of the court's analysis was whether McNaughton and Townsend possessed relevant evidence for the rule 15 motion and whether their examination constituted an abuse of process. The court concluded that the requested evidence from McNaughton and Townsend did not bear directly on the plaintiffs' challenge to rule 15. The court underscored that the determination of the OWA's obligation to provide legal representation would be based on the interpretation of its statutory mandate, particularly under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs had not convincingly shown that McNaughton and Townsend were likely to have evidence critical to the rule 15 motion. The judgment also noted Townsend's statutory immunity from being compelled to testify or produce documents under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The court also ruled that examining the non-parties constitutes an abuse of process because much of the non-privileged government documentation being sought is already available to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court quashed the summonses. [GN] CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. ("Checkpoint" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CKPT) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 24-cv-02613, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Checkpoint securities between March 10, 2021 and December 15, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Checkpoint securities during the Class Period, you have until June 4, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Checkpoint is a clinical-stage immunotherapy and targeted oncology company that focuses on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of novel treatments for patients with solid tumor cancers in the U.S. and internationally. The Company relies on third-party contract manufacturers to, inter alia, conduct its preclinical and clinical studies and trials, as well as to complete commercial and pre-commercial manufacturing. Checkpoint's lead antibody product candidate is cosibelimab for the treatment of selected recurrent or metastatic cancers. In January 2023, Checkpoint submitted a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the approval of cosibelimab as a treatment for patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma ("cSCC") or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation (the "cosibelimab BLA"). The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Checkpoint had overstated its oversight of, and/or its establishment of adequate manufacturing standards and controls over, its third-party contract manufacturers; (ii) accordingly, there were one or more issues with the Company's third-party contract manufacturing organization ("CMO") for cosibelimab; (iii) all the foregoing reduced the likelihood that the FDA would approve the cosibelimab BLA in its present form; (iv) as a result, the manufacturing, regulatory, and commercial prospects of cosibelimab were overstated; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 18, 2023, Checkpoint issued a press release disclosing that the FDA had not approved the cosibelimab BLA as a treatment for patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. In particular, the Company announced "that the [FDA] has issued a complete response letter ('CRL') for the cosibelimab [BLA] for the treatment of patients with metastatic or locally advanced [cSCC] who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation." The Company stated that "[t]he CRL . . . cites findings that arose during a multi-sponsor inspection of Checkpoint's third-party [CMO] as approvability issues to address in a resubmission." On this news, Checkpoint's stock price fell $1.49 per share, or 44.88%, to close at $1.83 per share on December 18, 2023. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP 600 3rd Ave New York, NY 10016 dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] COINBASE INC: Circuit Court Revives Illegal Contracts Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ekta Mourya of FXStreet reports that Coinbase is facing a class action lawsuit brought against it by users seeking damages arising from the sale or solicitation of 79 digital assets that they allege amount to illegal contracts because the platform is not registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. While the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit, and this may look like a setback for Coinbase, it affirmed Judge Paul A. Engelmayer's dismissal of claims raised under the US Securities and Exchange Act. Coinbase faces heat from class action lawsuit revival A class action lawsuit against the exchange that was dismissed by a Judge in 2021 has been revived by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals. While this may appear as a setback for the exchange platform, Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal applauded the court for confirming that exchange has no private liability for the secondary trading of digital assets on its platform. The consumers who filed the class action lawsuit failed to identify specific contracts that meet the requirements for cancellation under the law, according to the panel's ruling. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal judge in New York who dismissed the suit last year shouldn't have relied on a December 2021 user agreement. The three-judge appeals panel sent the case to the district court to help determine which user agreement should be used to determine whether the class-action can be dismissed. The lawsuit, Louis Oberlander vs. Coinbase Global Inc. alleges that Coinbase promoted the sale of the tokens by providing users with descriptions and their purported value. The exchange allegedly engaged in promotions, shared news and updates about crypto price movements to users and shared web stories. CLO Grewal's comments show how the exchange is prepared to tackle the lawsuit, and believes in "contracts" that users enter in, while using the exchange platform. [GN] COLUMBUS, IN: Judge Sets Hearing Date for Data Privacy Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andy East, writing for therepublic.com, reports that a Marion County judge has set hearing dates in a proposed class-action lawsuit against Columbus Regional Health over alleged data privacy violations. On April 5, 2024, Marion County Superior Court Judge Christina R. Klineman scheduled a hearing on May 8 to consider a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by CRH, according to court filings. Klineman also set a March 26, 2025, deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification and a pretrial conference on May 20, 2025. The lawsuit, filed on the Indiana Commercial Court docket in Marion Superior Court 1 in Indianapolis, claims that CRH embedded tracking technology on its website that collects and shares information about its patients with Meta, Google, Microsoft, Adobe Inc., DoubleClick, Marchex and "potentially others," according to an amended complaint filed in January. This allegedly includes the content that users searched for on CRH's website, the buttons they clicked on, the forms they submitted, the events they registered for, when they accessed the patient portal and paid bills, the terms they searched for and the doctors they sought, the lawsuit states. The complaint further alleges that CRH's use of the technology violates HIPAA, the federal patient privacy law, as well as Federal Trade Commission standards and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. Columbus residents and CRH patients Brian and Annie Elkins are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Annie Elkins was identified in the original complaint as a former CRH employee. The lawsuit proposes a class made up of any Indiana resident whose private information was disclosed by CRH through the tracking technology without authorization. "When plaintiffs and class members used defendant's website and online platforms, they thought they were communicating exclusively with their trusted healthcare provider," the amended complaint states. "Unbeknownst to them, defendant embedded pixels from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, DoubleClick and Marchex on its website and online platforms, surreptitiously forcing plaintiff and class members to transmit intimate details about their medical treatment to third parties without their consent." Since being filed in May, the lawsuit has bounced between the state and federal court systems. CRH has sought to move the lawsuit to federal court, arguing, among other things, that the complaint involves alleged violations of federal privacy standards, court records show. Attorneys representing CRH said in a court filing they planned to argue in federal court that the hospital system did not violate federal privacy standards, and the "specific information that is purportedly ‘disclosed' are outside of the purview of protected health information." However, a federal judge sent the lawsuit back to Marion Superior Court on Oct. 10, finding, among other things, that using alleged violations of federal standards as evidence for civil liability under state law does not, by default, confer jurisdiction to a federal court. In November, CRH appealed the order to remand the case to state court. The hospital system also filed a motion to, among other things, pause the order sending the case to state court until the federal appeals court weighs in. In February, a federal judge denied CRH's motion, determining, among other things, that the hospital system "is unlikely to face prejudice in state court" and that "delay here only benefits" CRH. The appeal was still pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as of April 5 morning. "There is no harm to either party for the litigation to carry on in state court while the remand order is reviewed on appeal. The same things would be happening in either place; it does not matter where," U.S. District Judge James R. Sweeney II states in an order dated Feb. 21. Last month, CRH filed a separate motion in state court seeking to dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds, arguing that the plaintiffs did not comply with state laws on bringing tort claims against a local governmental entity. More specifically, CRH argues that the plaintiffs did not file a notice of a tort claim or give the hospital system 90 days as required by law to investigate the claim before they filed the lawsuit. A tort is an act or omission that results in injury or damage that may entitle an affected party to seek damages, often in the form of monetary compensation, according to the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute. The plaintiffs "did not wait 90 days to initiate a suit -- they sued immediately, then amended their complaint 90 days later to formally list their tort theories," the motion states. No decision had been made on the motion as of morning of April 2. CRH officials have declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing the pending litigation. "In order to protect the integrity of a pending case, Columbus Regional Health refrains from comment on active litigation matters," CRH spokeswoman Kelsey DeClue said previously in a statement to The Republic. "However, our organization intends to vigorously defend against these claims." The allegations against CRH come as a growing number of hospitals and health systems across the country face lawsuits that allege they disclosed private patient data to tech giants through tracking technology on their website and other online platforms. The lawsuits largely involve the use of tracking technology called tracking pixels, which are pieces of computer code embedded into a website that can track and record a range of personal data on how a user interacts with the website, including information that users have typed in a form while on the website, according to the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Technology. Pixels can be hidden from view, and blocking third-party cookies may not prevent pixels from collecting and sharing information. Businesses commonly use them to track consumer behavior and target them with advertisements based on their online activity. Many of the lawsuits, including the one filed against CRH, mention the use of the Meta Pixel, a tracking pixel developed by Facebook parent company Meta. Meta has described the Meta Pixel as "a snippet of JavaScript code that loads a small library of functions" that can track Facebook ad-driven visitor activity on a website and "match website visitors to their respective Facebook user accounts." Court filings have alleged that the Meta Pixel can track information about a visitor's device, including IP address and the pages viewed. It also can be configured to track search terms, button clicks and form submissions. However, it is unclear how CRH had configured those tools or if it even used them at all. The original complaint and amended complaint do not specify how the plaintiffs concluded that CRH uses the tracking pixels, though the amended complaint provides alleged examples of the tools being used. The issue of tracking technologies in health care settings came to light in June 2022 after a report by tech publication The Markup found that the Meta Pixel was installed on 33 of Newsweek's top 100 hospitals in the country, including Johns Hopkins Hospital, UCLA Reagan Medical Center and Duke University Hospital. The publication said former regulators, health data security experts and privacy advocates reviewed the report's findings and found the hospitals' use of the tracking tool may have violated HIPAA. Since then, lawsuits have been filed against Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, Rush University System for Health in Chicago, U of L Health in Louisville, LCMC Health in New Orleans, among several others across the country. By April 2023, at least 18 hospitals and health systems were facing similar lawsuits, according to Becker's Health IT. [GN] EDISONLEARNING INC: Svoboda Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH SVOBODA, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDISONLEARNING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60433-AHS (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2024) arises from the recent cyberattack and data breach that was perpetuated against EdisonLearning wherein Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to inadequate data security practices. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current or former employees at EdisonLearning. EdisonLearning, Inc. is a company that provides digital learning solutions for students grades 6-12.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: 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. Then, on March 25, 2024, Equinix filed an 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which contained a press release in which Equinix announced that the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors had commenced an independent investigation to review the matters referenced in the Hindenburg report. Equinix also announced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California shortly after the release of the Hindenburg report. On this news, Equinix's stock fell on March 25, 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] FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions ----------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Action, reports that Ford class action alleges Fusions, Escapes have defective transmissions. Who: More than 100 plaintiffs have joined a Ford class action lawsuit. Why: The class action alleges the automaker knowingly sold certain Ford Fusion and Ford Escape vehicles with a transmission defect that can cause premature wear of the internal components and potentially lead to catastrophic failures. Where: The Ford class action lawsuit was filed in Michigan federal court. Ford Motor Company knowingly sold Ford Fusions and Ford Escapes with defective transmissions, according to claims made in a 533-page Ford class action lawsuit filed March 20 in Michigan federal court. The Ford transmission defect allegedly affects model year 2010-2020 Ford Fusion and 2009-2021 Ford Escape vehicles. "Ford repeatedly lied to consumers as to the reasons for the problems consumers experienced," says the Ford class action lawsuit, which has already been joined by more than 100 plaintiffs. "As a result, consumers were and are stuck in unsafe Fusion and Escape autos that have costly repairs and minimum resale value" allegedly due to the Ford transmissions defect. The automaker allegedly knew the Ford transmissions in its Fusions and Escapes had a defective condition that could manifest in violent jerking, delayed acceleration, difficulty stopping, hard decelerations, premature wear of the internal components and potential catastrophic failures. The Ford transmission defect is the result of a "fundamental design failure" in the interconnected array of software and hardware systems that allow the transmission to operate, the Ford class action lawsuit alleges. Had the plaintiffs known about the Ford transmission defect and the potential for premature failure, they would not have purchased or leased the affected vehicles, according to the Ford class action lawsuit. As a result of the undisclosed Ford transmission defect, the plaintiffs claim they experienced financial losses, including but not limited to out-of-pocket costs related to repairs, costs of obtaining alternative transportation and decreased value of their vehicles. The plaintiffs also claim they suffered harm because their vehicles' transmissions and related components "are substantially certain to fail before their expected useful life has run," the Ford class action lawsuit alleges. Ford recently reached a $365 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations it put a sham row of back seats in cargo vans to avoid a 25% duty rate. Jones is represented by Kenneth A. Stern of Stern Law PLLC, Amy L. Wells of Wells Law Office Inc., Amy L. Marino of Marino Law PLLC and William C. Ourand Jr. of Newsome Melton PA. The Ford transmissions class action lawsuit is Gerkarrah Jones v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-10721-MAG-CI, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. [GN] FRAME AUTO: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- JESUS ROMERO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FRAME AUTO COLLISION INC. and JESUS PAGAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01998 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a car detailer from on or about April 1, 2022 through on or about April 7, 2023. Specifically, Defendants routinely scheduled Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, beyond 40 hours in a workweek, yet from the beginning of his employment until on or about December 31, 2022, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that did not include overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for any hours that Plaintiff worked over 40 in a week, and from January 1, 2023, until the end of his employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis for only his 40 hours of work in a week and nothing for his hours worked in a week over 40. The Defendants further violated the NYLL by failing to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement on each payday or with any wage notice upon his hire, asserts the suit. The Defendants also violated the FLSA, the NYLL, and New York common law by retaining/converting for their own use all tips that customers intended to give to Plaintiff for work that he performed on their cars. Frame Auto Collision Inc. is a New York corporation that operates a Nassau County-based auto body shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Nettle, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248 6027 HERITAGE PLACE: Singh Files Suit Over Late, Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- RABINDRA SINGH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE PLACE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02000 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2024) seeks redress for systematic late and/or unpaid minimum and/or overtime wages against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. As part of its regular business practice, the Defendant intentionally, willfully and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or policy of violating the FLSA and NYLL including but not limited to: failing to pay promptly, timely and completely Plaintiff and the others the minimum wage for all hours worked in each discrete work week; and failing to pay promptly, timely and completely Plaintiff and the others one and one half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week in each discrete work week, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a full-time building superintendent from March 2019 until January 4, 2024. Heritage Place, LLC is a provider of real property services and housing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against HireRight Holdings Corporation ("HireRight" or the "Company") (NYSE:HRT) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and docketed under 24-cv-00371, is on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired HireRight securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with HireRight's October 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired HireRight securities during the Class Period, you have until May 28, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. HireRight provides technology-driven workforce risk management and compliance solutions to a customer base characterized as a "diverse set of organizations, from large-scale multinational businesses to small and medium-sized businesses, across a broad range of industries." The Company offers background screening, verification, identification, monitoring, and drug and health screening services for customers under the HireRight brand name and boasts a purportedly "robust pipeline of opportunities developed by [its] sales team to continue to attract new customers and take share in the market." On October 6, 2021, HireRight filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on October 28, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On November 1, 2021, HireRight filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). That same day, pursuant to the Offering Documents, HireRight's common stock began publicly trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HRT. Pursuant to the Offering Documents, HireRight issued approximately 22. million shares of its common stock to the public at the Offering price of $19.00 per share for proceeds to the Company of approximately $399 million after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses. The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HireRight was exposed to customers with significant employment and hiring risk and the Company derived greater revenue growth from existing client hiring than from new client hiring; (ii) as a result, the Company's revenue growth was unsustainable to the extent that it relied on the stability of its current customers' hiring and/or the profitability of securing new customers; (iii) accordingly, HireRight had overstated its post-IPO business and/or prospects; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On January 19, 2023, Stifel, a brokerage and investment banking firm, downgraded HireRight's stock from a Hold to a Buy, prompting several market analysts to issue publications discussing the downgrade. For example, Seeking Alpha reported that Stifel found HireRight to be exposed to large technology firms where there is more acute employment and hiring risk, and that more of the Company's growth comes from existing client hiring than from new. On this news, HireRight's stock price fell $0.88 per share, or 7.5%, to close at $10.75 per share on January 19, 2023. At the time of this Complaint, HireRight's common stock continue to trade below the $19.00 per share IPO price. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of HireRight's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Faces Putative Class Action Over Spy Tracking Pixels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany A. Andres, writing for National Law Review, reports that it looks like Home Depot is caught in another privacy suit. Home Depot, Inc. and Validity, Inc. are being sued in a putative class action alleging violations of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act (A.R.S. Sec. 44-1376 et seq.). What is this Arizona act? Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act prohibits a person from knowingly obtaining a "communication service record" of any Arizona resident i) without the authorization of the person to whom the record pertains or ii) by fraudulent, deceptive or false means. (A.R.S. Sec. 44-1376.01(A)(1). A.R.S. Sec. 44-1376 (1) defines "communication service record" as follows: "'Communication service record' includes subscriber information, including name, billing or installation address, length of service, payment method, telephone number, electronic account identification and associated screen names, toll bills or access logs, records of the path of an electronic communication between the point of origin and the point of delivery and the nature of the communication service provided, such as caller identification, automatic number identification, voice mail, electronic mail, paging or other service features. Communication service records do not include the content of any stored oral, wire or electronic communication or a telephone record." What happened here? Ivonne Carbajal alleges that Home Depot enabled spy tracking pixels from Validity, Inc. in its marketing emails and tracked data which she was never informed of and never provided her consent to. The spy tracking pixels, she alleges, track all sorts of stuff -- the time and place where Plaintiff and other Arizona residents opened the email, the average read time of an email, the amount of times an email was opened, whether an email was printed, whether an email was forwarded, and how long the recipient looked at the email, the device the recipient used to look at the email and even if and where you clicked within an email. Read the full complaint here. If this is really true, this is interesting stuff. The purpose of such tracking was to create targeted advertising campaigns for Home Depot and presumably other affiliate retailers and service providers. Carbajal seeks to represent a class defined as: All persons in the State of Arizona who have opened a marketing email containing a tracking pixel from Defendants. Because this case was just filed it will be interesting to see how this case progresses. More to come! Carbajal v. Home Depot, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:24-cv-00730-DGC [GN] HOTEL FIGUEROA: Ibarra Sues Over Worker Retention Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- morningstar.com reports that on April 3, 2024, a laid-off cook, Maria Ibarra, filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of Los Angeles's Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance at the Hotel Figueroa where more than a hundred workers have lost their jobs. Located at the corner of Figueroa Street and Olympic Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles, the Hotel Figueroa is an iconic 14-floor building, which, in addition to guest rooms, features two destination restaurants, Sparrow Italia and Cafe Fig, and several other food and beverage outlets. The hotel has been the site of controversy since, as reported in the LA Times, the hotel's former food and beverage operator, Noble 33, abruptly terminated its operations and laid off its employees in February. The lawsuit alleges that the Hotel Figueroa's owner BGO (formerly GreenOak Real Estate) and operators have violated a city ordinance meant to protect workers' jobs when there are changes in management by failing to retain them when the new operator took over. The Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance was enacted to address the problem of mass layoffs of hotel workers that have occurred historically when corporate ownership or management of a hotel changes. The ordinance requires that new owners or operators retain the site's employees for a transitional period, ensuring employment stabilization for community members and alleviating the demands for social services for newly-unemployed workers. The class action lawsuit alleges that, just days after Noble 33 ceased operations and laid off its employees, BGO and its primary operator Highgate contracted with a new company, The Botanical Group, to serve as the operator for the hotel's Cafe Fig and other outlets. Cafe Fig and other food and beverage operations were quickly reopened, but without their former non-management staff. "We service workers are not disposable. We're not something to be tossed aside when we're no longer convenient. I am filing this lawsuit to make sure our rights are respected," said Maria Ibarra, the lead plaintiff, a former cook at Hotel Figueroa. The lawsuit accuses the BGO, Highgate, and Botanical Group of unlawfully failing to retain veteran employees. The suit also alleges that former operator Noble 33 failed to facilitate the transition by timely providing all necessary information about the workers to the other companies. Ms. Ibarra and the putative class of affected Hotel Figueroa workers are represented by Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law and Jeremy Blasi in his individual capacity. UNITE HERE Local 11 is a labor union representing more than 32,000 hospitality workers in Southern California and Arizona that work in hotels, restaurants, universities, convention centers and airports. [GN] J-M MANUFACTURING: Summary Judgment Reply in Cambridge Due May 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiff Cambridge Lane, LLC's ex parte application for relief, and setting the following briefing schedule: Brief Filing Deadline Cambridge Lane's Reply in support of April 25, 2024 its Motion for Class Certification Cambridge Lane's Opposition to J-M's April 25, 2024 Motion for Summary Judgment Cambridge Lane's Opposition to J-M's April 25, 2024 Daubert Motions J-M's Reply in Support of its Motion May 23, 2024 for Summary Judgment J-M's Replies in Support of its Daubert May 23, 2024 motions The Court will hear J-M's motion for summary judgment [546], and J-M's daubert motions on June 13, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. The Court will hear the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on June 24, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. J-M manufactures widest array of high grade, high performance plastic pipe. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wlQubx at no extra charge.[CC] J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN HUMPHREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick, having considered the Parties' Stipulation regarding the Litigation Schedule, and good cause appearing therefore, orders as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Robin Humphrey's suggestion of death will be due by April 2, 2024. 2. The Plaintiffs' Third amended complaint will be due by April 2, 2024. 3. The Parties' joint case management statement will remain due by April 16, 2024. 4. The Defendants' answer or response to the Plaintiffs' third amended Complaint will be due on or before April 18, 2024. 5. The Case Management Conference will remain set for April 23, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. 6. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be due by Aug. 30, 2024. 7. The Defendants' opposition will be due by Nov. 1, 2024. 8. The Plaintiffs' reply will be due by Dec. 13, 2024. 9. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be reset to Jan. 8, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. 10. Pretrial Conference will be set for Nov. 10, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. 11. Trial will be set for December 8, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. by Jury. On Nov. 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint. J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QXqE8Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. Jonathan L. Wolloch BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com jwolloch@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. Bart L. Kessel, Esq. Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com Ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com Anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com KOLD TRANS: Courts OKs Ex Parte Application to Stay Hamilton Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennie Hamilton v. Kold Trans, LLC et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01859 (C.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpo entered an order granting ex parte application to stay action. Judge Frimpong said that the action is stayed pending the resolution of the Martinez Action. The Stay shall automatically lift upon the issuance of a final Order regarding the settlement of the Martinez Action. Plaintiffs must re-file their Motion for Class Certification, or file a statement indicating that they stand on their previous Motion, within 30 days of a final Order regarding the settlement of the Martinez Action, the Judge said. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC] L'OREAL USA: Acne Foam Cream Contains Carcinogen, Painter Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN PAINTER and ROBERT HIGHTOWER, individually, and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-03077-MDH (W.D. Mo., March 19, 2024) is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, and sale of CeraVe(R) Cream benzoyl peroxide (BPO) products that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogen that has been linked to leukemia and other blood cancers, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on Defendant's representations that the BPO Products were safe, unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens that are not listed on the label. The BPO Products are worthless because they contain benzene at levels which render the BPO Products adulterated, misbranded, and illegal to sell under federal and Missouri law, says the suit. L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Melody R. Dickson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com mdickson@wcllp.com LENOVO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Volinsky Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX VOLINSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00250-KKM-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order as follows: 1. Count II and Volinsky's claims for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing. 2. Counts I, III, V, VI, and VII are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 3. Count IV is dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading and the Court sua sponte grants Volinsky leave to amend Count IV to properly separate the three warranty claims contained within into separate counts. Any amendment must be filed no later than April 10, 2024. The Plaintiff seeks to represent two consumer classes—one from Florida and one from a seemingly random collection of other southern states—in an action claiming that Lenovo committed a host of statutory violations and common law torts arising out of the 14w's alleged "defective hinge mechanism." Along with a Florida class, Volinsky seeks to represent a "Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class" asserting Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee class members' claims under those states' consumer fraud statutes. The gist of Volinsky's suit is that the 14w did not live up to Lenovo's billing. He claims that the hinge mechanism "was made of low-quality [and] low-strength materials, which caused the hinges to break and/or detach. In 2019, Alex Volinsky bought a Lenovo 14w laptop from the company’s website. Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cEUNAE at no extra charge.[CC] LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Suit Seeks To Certify Class Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated: 1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action contained in the First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the grounds that: (1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class; (3) Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class; and (4) Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). 3. Certifying the following classes: "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Leprino in the State of California who received the payment of overtime and/or shift differential wages, at any time from June 28, 2021, to the present (the "Wage Statement Class" or "Wage Statement Class Members")"; "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who: (i) worked at Leprino’s non-union Lemoore West facility in Lemoore, California; and (ii) earned non-discretionary incentive compensation and meal/rest period premiums during the same workweek, at any time from June 28, 2018 to Nov. 7, 2021 (the "Meal/Rest Period Class" or "Meal/Rest Period Class Members")"; and "All former non-exempt employees of Defendant who: (i) worked at Leprino's non-union Lemoore West facility in Lemoore, California; (ii) received payment of non-discretionary incentive compensation and sick pay during the same workweek during the period of June 28, 2019 to May 2, 2021; and (iii) whose employment ended at any time from June 28, 2019, through the present (the "Sick Pay Class" or "Sick Pay Class Members"). 4. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative and certifying him as the class representative. 5. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel, Larry W. Lee, Kristen M. Agnew, Mai Tulyathan and Max Gavron of Diversity Law Group, P.C., and William L. Marder of Polaris Law Group, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. On June 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action against the Defendant in California Superior Court. Since at least June 28, 2021, the Defendant's wage statements have separated overtime hours into "overtime 1.0" and "overtime premium." However, "the overtime 1.0 hours and overtime premium hours constitute the same hours of work." As a result of this practice, the wage statements presented to non-exempt employees include redundant hours, which do not allow for the hours displayed on the wage statement to be easily summed to obtain the total hours worked. Leprino is a manufacturer of mozzarella and lactose, and a producer of whey protein. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K8wcr0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL, CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, and CASSANDRA ODUM, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the unopposed motion to suspend the class certification deadlines until such time as the Court has heard and entered orders on the Pending Motions which are set for in-person hearing on May 7, 2024. On Nov. 16, 2022, the Court entered its initial Joint Scheduling Order setting certain class certification briefing deadlines. On Feb. 9, 2024, the Parties filed their joint motion for extension of class certification deadlines, and the court entered the order extending class certification deadlines which is the subject of the current Motion. Under the existing scheduling order, the parties would have to complete class certification discovery by April 15, 2024, more than two weeks before the hearing on the Pending Motions, and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification is May 15, 2024, just one week after the hearing on the Pending Motions. Liberty operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PcWLjE at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Maggie Burreson, Esq. Michael J. Murtha, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mburreson@jw.com mmurtha@jw.com - and - Marilyn Brown, Esq. Michael Roberts, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 236-2000 Facsimile: (512) 236-2002 E-mail: mbrown@jw.com mroberts@jw.com LINCARE INC: Class Certification Bid in Morris Extended to May 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET MORRIS, v. LINCARE INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone entered an order granting Ms. Morris's motion to extend the class certification deadline to May 6, 2024. Ms. Morris also requests this court order Lincare to comply with a prior order compelling production of robocall transmission logs. Lincare responded that certain documents have since been produced. It is unclear whether the issues raised in the motion to compel have been resolved by this production. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to confer and file a joint notice by April 5, 2024 advising the court which issues, if any, remain from Ms. Morris’s motion to . Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services for patients in the home. A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fvIYEW at no extra charge.[CC] LINCOLN LIFE: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Vida Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIDA LONGEVITY FUND, LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:19-cv-06004-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, -- granting in part and denying in part the Parties' motions to seal, and -- denying the Defendant's motion for oral argument. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 143, 151, 165, 168, 169, 178, 182, and 187. The Court finds that the majority of the Parties' motions to seal should be granted because they reference or contain internal pricing methodologies, confidential internal communications, specific features of proprietary insurance products, and various other proprietary methodologies and because Defendant's proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve their cognizable interests. The Plaintiff, a beneficial owner of two life insurance policies issued by LLANY, claims that the Defendant LLANY breached its contractual obligations to a class of its universal life insurance policyholders by charging them higher "Cost of Insurance" ("COI") fees than contractually permissible. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on June 27, 2019. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs requested Class Action certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Lincoln offers annuities, life insurance, and retirement planning services. A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mknaHe at no extra charge.[CC] MAYO CLINIC: Faces Class Action Over Employee Health Plans ---------------------------------------------------------- Max Nesterak, writing for minnesotareformer.com, reports that a worker at Mayo Clinic's Arizona hospital filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the health system and insurer Medica in federal court April 2, 2024, alleging they were saddled with enormous health care bills after their claims were "systemically underpaid." The legal filing echoes some of the complaints the Reformer first reported last fall from Mayo Clinic workers, who said their poor health insurance forced them to see expensive out-of-network providers for essential care. Mayo Clinic employees said they racked up more than $10,000 in health care costs a year while others said they avoided going to the doctor for fear of what it would cost, all while working for one of the world's most prestigious health care organizations. The worker, who is unnamed in the lawsuit, is seeking reimbursement for the money they allege they overpaid for care that should have been reimbursed -- as well as for the thousands of other Mayo Clinic employees and Medica customers they believe are similarly situated and paid more than they should have for care. The lawsuit alleges Medica, which administers Mayo Clinic's self-insured plan, uses "deceptive, misleading, arbitrary" pricing methods that leave plan members in the dark about health costs and allow for inconsistent reimbursement rates, in violation of federal law and Medica's fiduciary responsibilities. One significant problem for Mayo workers is Medica's provider portal, which is supposed to direct workers to in-network doctors and other health care professionals. According to the lawsuit, Medica provided false and misleading information about providers in its member portal. The plaintiff, who is represented by the McCune Law Group, found zero in-network providers when using the Medica portal, leading them to believe they could have care covered for out-of-network health care. Even though the providers were licensed and accredited professionals, Mayo and Medica only covered a fraction of the bill. Medica also lacks transparency in its explanation of benefits, so members don't have enough information to understand or appeal Medica's coverage determinations. Even when asked for their pricing methods, Medica and Mayo refused to provide the relevant information, according to the lawsuit. A spokesperson for Medica said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. A Mayo spokeswoman shared a statement saying Mayo was reviewing the claims and declined to comment further. Mayo's facilities are in-network for all employees, and those who are near one of the major campuses in Minnesota, Florida or Arizona told the Reformer last year they receive great care -- when they're able to get appointments. But Mayo also employs many remote workers who must find providers that are part of a third-party network to receive the most affordable care. Workers described what experts call a "phantom network": the insurer claims to have dozens or even hundreds of in-network doctors and other providers, but they aren't taking new patients, no longer accept the insurance or have retired. While nurses, software developers, researchers and thousands of other Mayo Clinic workers may struggle to find affordable care, Mayo doctors and executives are given an annual allowance of up to $10,000 a year to cover the difference between out-of-network and in-network coinsurance costs as well as dental and orthodontic expenses.[GN] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Inflated Commission Rates' Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports that on Wednesday federal judge ruled that home sellers accusing the National Association of Realtors and a group of real estate brokerages of conspiring to inflate commission rates can move forward as a class action. US District Judge Andrea Wood's decision grants class-action status to past home sellers seeking more than $13 billion in damages and creates a separate class of current and future sellers who want a court injunction that bars subsequent violations of U.S. antitrust law. The plaintiffs are seven home sellers. The judge's order said membership in each class "can be expected to number in the thousands, at minimum." Designation as a class means the plaintiffs' can pursue large-scale claims against the National Association of Realtors, RE/MAX LLC, Long & Foster Inc and other corporate defendants as opposed to filing individual claims for monetary damages. [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Brantmeier Sues Over Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that University of North Carolina women's tennis standout Reese Brantmeier has filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging that the NCAA imposed "arbitrary and anticompetitive prize restrictions" that "prohibit student-athletes . . . from accepting cash awards, bonuses, and other monetary prizes . . . awarded through non-NCAA competitions." The complaint takes a strident tone, seeking to "lift the veil of hypocrisy" on the NCAA for its disparate treatment of student-athletes in non-revenue individual sports like tennis and student-athletes in cash cow sports like football and men's basketball. Currently, NCAA regulations permit student-athletes to enter non-NCAA competitions against or with professional athletes but prohibit them from receiving prize money exceeding actual expenses. One notable exception to this rule is the Olympics under the Operation Gold Program. While current NCAA rules allow student-athletes to accept money for competing in the Olympics, Brantmeier alleges that the NCAA has been inconsistent in the application of this rule. According to the complaint, the NCAA's application of the prize money rule is arbitrarily applied and often "turns on the specific competition at issue or the certain governing body's terminology for monies awarded based on athletic performance in non-NCAA competition." Brantmeier contends that the NCAA's application of this rule lacks consistency and fairness, particularly considering NCAA rules allowing student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Brantmeier asserts that the NCAA lacks "any coherent economic explanation" for this disparity in treatment. As to the antitrust injury specifically, Brantmeier alleges that the NCAA's restrictions have deprived student-athletes of compensation earned for their athletic performance, which "unlawfully suppress[es] the earning ability of student-athletes competing in individual sports." Among other anticompetitive harms, the NCAA "unreasonably restrain[s] trade by prohibiting student-athletes from obtaining more than a fixed amount of compensation . . . for their services," including, as relevant here, "by specifically prohibiting the earning of prize money and awards for non-NCAA competitions beyond the NCAA-approved expenses incurred in participating in the non-NCAA events." The crux of the alleged antitrust violation is that "the NCAA's anticompetitive, horizontal agreements (as implemented as rules and accepted and binding on NCAA member institutions) fix and severely limit the amount of compensation that college athletes may receive for their athletic services." The plaintiff proposes sweeping relevant markets, identifying "the nationwide markets for the labor of NCAA Division I college athletes in the Individual Sports in which they compete." The plaintiff reasons that, "[a]s monopsony buyers in the relevant labor markets, the NCAA and its members have the market power to control prices and exclude competition." The proposed class includes those who "competed in athletic events that awarded Prize Money based on place finish or performance in those sports defined by the NCAA as Individual Sports" or "currently participate in NCAA Division I Individual Sports and intend to compete" in such events. Notably, the complaint acknowledges that this suit does not come in a vacuum: "[I]t is no secret that the NCAA has come under fire for its unyielding stance against student-athlete rights and compensation. . . As widely reported, a number of student-athletes have filed class action antitrust lawsuits seeking redress for the harm caused by the NCAA's anticompetitive and illegal rules." As Bradley wrote earlier this year, the NCAA is currently embroiled in a barrage of antitrust legal challenges, posing a persistent threat to its operations as the governing entity of collegiate athletics. This particular lawsuit aims to obtain an injunction restraining the NCAA from enforcing "unlawful and anticompetitive rules that restrict the ability of student-athletes, before or during their collegiate careers, to accept prize money in connection with non-NCAA competitions." Although the plaintiff is not seeking monetary damages, the case adds to the mounting legal pressure against the NCAA's amateurism regulations. The outcome of this legal battle, and others, could potentially reshape the landscape of college sports operations, ushering in significant changes to the current framework and regulations governing collegiate athletics. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: To Pay $17.5MM to Settle "Hijab" Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Tabachnickm, writing for cbsnew.com, reports that New York City will pay $17.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit over forcing women to remove hijabs for mug shots, their lawyers and advocates said in a statement on April 5, 2024. More than 3,600 in the class action lawsuit will be eligible for payments of approximately $7,000 to $13,000 nearly four years after the police agreed to change their policy on religious head coverings. The settlement needs to be approved by the federal judge overseeing the case. "This is a milestone for New Yorkers' privacy and religious rights," said Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the advocacy organization, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. "The NYPD should never have stripped these religious New Yorkers of their head coverings and dignity. This wasn't just an assault on their rights but on everything our city claims to believe in." On March 16, 2018, Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz filed a complaint against the city alleging police made them remove their hijabs for mug shots. The two women became the named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, which covers arrests that happened between March 16, 2014, and August 23, 2021, in the city. Clark had been arrested for filing a bogus protective order against her abusive husband, court documents said. She said the NYPD had threatened to prosecute her if she didn't remove her hijab. Court documents said an NYPD officer took a photo of Clark while she wept and begged to put the coverings back on. "When they forced me to take off my hijab, I felt as if I were naked, I'm not sure if words can capture how exposed and violated I felt," Clark said in a statement. "I'm so proud to have played a part in getting justice for thousands of New Yorkers. This settlement proves I was right all those years ago when I said it was wrong to remove my hijab for a mugshot. I hope no New Yorker ever has to experience what I went through." "We send our appreciation to the Muslim women who bravely persisted with this litigation, prompting policy change that benefit many with similar religious garb requirement," CAIR-NY Executive Director Afaf Nasher said in a statement. The NYPD changed its policy in 2020 allowing all arrestees to retain their religious head covering unless they fall within limited exceptions, court documents said. [GN] NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Certifies Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- blg.com reports that court certifies class action against health authority arising from employee snooping into medical records. Introduction Over the last several years, a number of privacy class action certification decisions have been favourable to defendants. However, in Welshman v Central Regional Health Authority, 2024 NLSC 35, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court rejected all of the defendant's arguments at the preliminary stage of certification, leaving them to be decided by the trial judge. Background In two separate but similar incidents, one or more rogue employees of the defendant Health Authority wrongfully accessed the private medical information of 260 individuals. The plaintiffs allege to have suffered from, inter alia, distress, humiliation, anger, upset, mental anguish, shock and fear of identity theft. The plaintiffs advance claims under Newfoundland and Labrador's Privacy Act, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence and breach of contract. Decision The court certified the class action, considering itself bound by a 2014 decision of the NLSC in a similar case, Hynes v Western Regional Health Authority. Statutory privacy tort and intrusion upon seclusion Like in Hynes, the court certified the statutory privacy tort on the basis that it is not plain and obvious that this claim would fail. The court held that whether the Health Authority itself could be found to have acted "wilfully" and "without colour of right" as provided under the province's Privacy Act -- and therefore potentially attract direct liability--should not be decided at the certification stage but is rather an issue to be determined at trial. Similarly, the court found that whether the Health Authority could be vicariously liable for the actions of its employee for breach of the Privacy Act should be decided at trial. The court also certified the claim based on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, noting that Newfoundland and Labrador's Privacy Act specifically states that the statutory privacy tort does not derogate from any other right or remedy available at common law -- an issue that remains under debate in other provinces with differing legislation. It is hard to reconcile the Welshman decision on the issue of direct liability with the findings of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Owsianik v Equifax Canada Co. That decision found that a data custodian cannot be held directly liable for intentional privacy torts committed by a third party, although a data custodian could still be sued under negligence for failure to take reasonable steps to protect the data. Negligence The court found that the private information at issue is more sensitive than the information in a number of other privacy class actions considered by Canadian courts, and consequently, that it could be possible at trial for some class members to prove the type of serious and prolonged psychological harms that meet the threshold for compensable damages. As such, the court found that the issue of damages should be determined at trial. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs must prove at certification that aggregate damages are appropriate, instead finding that aggregate damages are not required for certification. Rather, the assessment and appropriateness of aggregate damages can be left to the trial judge. Breach of contract The court certified the breach of contract claim, departing from Ontario's jurisprudence on this point in the healthcare context. In the Broutzas v Rouge Valley Health System decision, the Ontario Superior Court held that it was "plain and obvious" that the relationship between patients and hospitals is not contractual in nature. In that case, the court held that it would be an "artifice" to accept the argument that hospital privacy policies or patient admission forms could form the basis of an implied contract with implied terms between the hospital and its patients with respect to the protection of personal health information. In Welshman, the court held that it was bound by the principles of judicial comity and stare decisis to follow the 2014 Hynes decision from Newfoundland and Labrador, which recognized the possibility that a hospital could be liable in contact for breach of privacy. While establishing an implied or good faith contract claim may ultimately prove unsuccessful, the court found that the case law in Newfoundland and Labrador does not wholly preclude it. Takeaways -- In the context of a privacy breach, the sensitivity of the information at issue can impact how courts apply the "plain and obvious" analysis for the first criterion of the class action certification test. -- The law regarding whether it is "plain and obvious" that a hospital or health authority cannot be sued for breach of contract in the context of a privacy breach may differ from province to province and may attract the attention of appellate courts. -- While many decisions arising out of privacy breach class actions have recently favoured defendants, the certification threshold is low, and some plaintiffs will be able to satisfy it. [GN] NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Greenwashing Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Hall, writing for yahoo.com, reports that the athletic wear giant faced accusations over greenwashing in Missouri's Eastern District Court, filed by lead plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Ellis in May 2023. The complaint alleged that the Beaverton, Ore.-based company had violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by deceiving consumers, misrepresenting products and more. The MMPA was designed to protect consumers from misleading and unfair business practices. Ellis, who noted she purchased three items from Nike's sustainability line, alleged that the company "falsely and misleadingly markets the products as 'sustainable,' made with 'sustainable materials,' and environmentally friendly." The complaint, which accuses the company of greenwashing, notes that Nike labels some of its products with phrases like "'made with recycled fibers' which 'reduces our waste and carbon footprint,'" and others bear a circular symbol that "means that the products are made with 'sustainable' and environmentally friendly materials." However, Ellis alleged that Nike's sustainability emblazoned products, in actuality, had no environmental benefits. "They are not made with 'sustainable' and environmentally friendly materials because the products are not sustainable, and are not made from sustainable and environmentally friendly materials that are less harmful to the environment," the complaint read. "The marketing and labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving products that are 'sustainable' . . . but Nike's products do not live up to these claims." Ellis contended that she -- and other class participants -- "would not have purchased the products if she had known that they were not sustainable." One of the main cruxes of Ellis' argument proved to be around Nike's use of recycled materials. She alleged that "Of the 2,452 Nike 'Sustainability' Collection products identified [in the lawsuit], only 239 products are actually made with recycled materials. Thus, more than 90 percent of the Nike 'Sustainability' Collection products are not 'made with recycled fibers.'" The complaint also took aim at Nike for using recycled polyester and nylon, both of which are plastic-based synthetics. The plaintiff alleged that neither of those materials are sustainable and cause palpable harm to the environment because of the shedding of microplastics and the limited lives of recycled fibers. Ultimately, though, Ellis' arguments failed to persuade Judge Matthew Schelp that the case should see trial. In the memorandum and order to dismiss the case, Schlep wrote the following in reference to Ellis' claims around recycled fibers: "How does she know this to be true? She does not say…She makes no mention of any testing or analysis. She says nothing about how their look or feel might indicate their makeup. She puts forth no allegations surrounding the supplier of defendants' materials. She claims nothing about the manufacturing process. She details no inside knowledge from, say, a whistleblower, for example, who has come forward on this alleged massive corporate lie." He went on to conclude that an exhibit the plaintiff submitted to the court detailing the material makeups of certain products "is silent on whether the products contain or do not contain recycled material or organic material. That is, it does not say that the polyester [or materials] in these products was or was not virgin or was or was not recycled." Schelp concludes that the allegations are conclusory and that Ellis also failed to adequately describe the nature of the advertisements, labels and marketing from Nike that allegedly convinced her to purchase the products. Nike isn't the only company that has recently skirted legal trouble over greenwashing claims. Greenwashing cases against major brands have seemingly had a tough time making it to trial. In December, plaintiffs voluntarily dropped a class-action greenwashing suit against H&M. In May of last year, the Swedish company also won dismissal of a separate greenwashing case against it. Nike did not return Sourcing Journal's request for comment. [GN] NUSTAR ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Probes Proposed Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC provides update on: NuStar Energy L.P. (NYSE: NS) relating to its proposed sale to Sunoco LP. Under the terms of the agreement, NS shareholders are expected to receive 0.4 shares of Sunoco per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/nustar-energy-lp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Catalent, Inc. (NYSE: CTLT ), relating to its proposed sale to Novo Holdings. Under the terms of the agreement, CTLT shareholders will receive $63.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/catalent-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- The L.S. Starrett Company (NYSE: SCX ), relating to its proposed sale to an affiliate of MiddleGround Capital. Under the terms of the agreement, SCX shareholders are expected to receive $16.19 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ls-starrett-company. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Everbridge, Inc. (Nasdaq: EVBG ), relating to its proposed sale to Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the agreement, EVBG shareholders will receive $28.60 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/everbridge-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: May Face Detergent Pod Recall Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- settlementresearch.com reports that Procter & Gamble issued a recall for more than 8.2 million laundry detergent packets, including Tide, Gain, Ace and Ariel, because the packets can split open below the zipper track, making them no longer childproof. Procter & Gamble has received multiple reports of children in the United States accessing the laundry packets with three ingesting them but does not know if the packets were from the recalled lots. The recall includes 8.2 million packages in the United States and 56,741 in Canada. The recall includes bags with 12 to 39 laundry detergent packets manufactured between September 2023 and February 2024. Take advantage of our free claim filing service today, as you may qualify for up to $780 in compensation. No proof of purchase is necessary to file a claim. Payments may be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis. [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: To Defend Suit Over Mislabeled Hair Care Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- K&L Gates LLP, writing for JDSupra, reports that a recent rise in class-action complaints against beauty industry leaders, targeting the use of "clean" or "natural" descriptions in cosmetics, further highlights the tightrope brands must walk when marketing to consumers. In recent years, the beauty industry -- consumers, manufacturers, and everyone in between -- has unquestionably placed greater emphasis on "clean" and "natural" ingredients and end-products. But what do these claims actually mean to consumers? Sustainable? Non-toxic? Cruelty-free? Vegan? Free of harmful ingredients? The FDA does not define these terms for the cosmetics industry, and the FTC is expected to update its Green Guides sometime in 2024. Taking matters into their own hands, class-action plaintiffs recently targeted Sephora and The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) for alleged misleading use of these hot claims. Sephora's Win Leaves Door Open on Meaning of "Clean" On 15 March 2024, Sephora overcame a proposed class action in New York federal court, alleging its use of the label "Clean at Sephora" on certain beauty products, which contained synthetic or otherwise harmful ingredients, was deceptively misleading to consumers. The plaintiff claimed the "Clean at Sephora" program took advantage of vague regulations enforced in the cosmetics industry. District Judge David N. Hurd disagreed. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to "plausibly allege . . . that [Sephora] materially misled reasonable consumers when it marketed and sold its 'Clean at Sephora'" cosmetics, or that Sephora "made any explicit or implied promises that its 'Clean at Sephora' cosmetics were all-natural and free of any potentially harmful ingredients." The court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint left the court guessing as to how reasonable consumers would mistake "Clean at Sephora" to mean that the products contained "no synthetic or harmful ingredients whatsoever." In fact, Sephora states that "Clean at Sephora" means: "Brands formulated without phthalates, formaldehyde or formaldehyde releasers, oxybenzone and octinoxate, and more," not free from any and all synthetic ingredients. Thus, Sephora's clear statement on Sephora's definition of "clean" notified consumers as to the reasonable interpretation of the claim. Pending: P&G to Defend Label on Hair Care Products On 9 February 2024, two proposed class-action plaintiffs sued P&G in California federal court for P&G's phrasing of "X% natural-origin/naturally derived ingredients" on its Herbal Essences and Pantene shampoos and conditioners. Plaintiffs specifically allege these hair care products do not contain the identified percentages of natural-origin or naturally derived ingredients because, even if certain ingredients (e.g., citric acid) are available in nature, these ingredients "are not generally available from natural sources on the scale required for use in mass-produced products and" are "instead created through industrial processes for use in the [identified] products." Plaintiffs also claim that P&G's labeling is based on the British Standard Institute's (BSI) ISO 16128 -- an alleged "Byzantine method" to calculate "natural origin" and "% natural-origin." Plaintiff understands certain BSI publications to warn that brands should not rely upon ISO 16128 when drafting claims and labeling. The cited publication reads: "Neither ISO 16128-1 nor this document [i.e., ISO 16128-2] addresses product communication (e.g. claims and labelling),. . . characteristics of packaging materials or regulatory requirements applicable for cosmetics." It has yet to be determined whether the court also interprets BSI's failure to address product communications as a warning against brands using this standard to create their product claims and labels. Takeaways As the old adage correctly notes, the only constant is change. We are certainly on the precipice of changing conceptions of these terms, rooted in evolving consumer understanding and expectations. Where does this leave brands seeking to make these claims? The above actions remind brands of the importance of clear consumer communications, robust substantiation, and constant revisiting of claims against the evolving legal and consumer landscape. [GN] S.C. JOHNSON: Voluntary Dismissal of Garvey Suit Disapproved ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET PEGGI LOUISE GARVEY, v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01518-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order disapproving the stipulation to dismiss with prejudice. The parties may resubmit a stipulation of dismissal voluntarily dismissing the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and the class claims without prejudice, said the Court. Alternatively, the parties may submit a proposed class dismissal for court approval in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated a slew of consumer protection laws relating to the Defendant's representations that its Ziploc (TM) brand products are "recyclable." The Plaintiff filed the action not only on behalf of herself, but on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers. S. C. Johnson is a privately held manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer chemicals. A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vT7kdV at no extra charge.[CC] SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE SCULPTOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 2023-0921-SG SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of Sculptor Capital Management, Inc. ("Sculptor") common stock whose shares Rithm Capital Corp. ("Rithm") acquired at the closing of the Merger. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Gilles Beauchemin ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Class (defined below) and defendants Daniel S. Och, Harold A. Kelly, Jr., Richard Lyon, James O'Connor, Zoltan Varga, Marcy Engel, Bharath Srikrishnan, Charmel Maynard, David Bonanno, James Levin, Wayne Cohen, Rithm Capital Corp., Calder Sub, Inc., Calder Sub I, LP, Calder Sub II, LP, Calder Sub III, LP, Sculptor Capital Management, Inc. (the "Company"), Sculptor Capital LP, Sculptor Capital Advisors LP, Sculptor Capital Advisors II LP, (the "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement for $6,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). In addition to a fee not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund plus expenses, Plaintiff's Counsel will request an award for causing certain transaction price increases and supplemental disclosures, not to exceed $6,000,000, which will be paid solely by the Company, the Company's successor, Defendants' insurers, or other third parties (not the Settlement Fund). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and Release between Plaintiff and the Defendants, dated January 22, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.SculptorStockholderLitigation.com. The proposed Settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action and result in the dismissal of the Action with prejudice. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on May 20, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., before The Honorable Sam Glasscock III, Vice Chancellor, in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Sussex County, Court of Chancery Courthouse, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947, to, among other things: (i) determine whether the Action may be finally maintained as a non-opt-out class action and whether the Class should be finally certified, for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff may be finally appointed as representative for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel, Christensen & Dougherty LLP; Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC; Kaskela Law LLC; Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP; and Saxena White P.A., may be finally appointed as counsel for the Class, and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved; (vii) determine whether the application by Plaintiff for an incentive award should be approved; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.SculptorStockholderLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at 877-883-8091 or info@SculptorStockholderLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.SculptorStockholderLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" will consist of all Class Members who held or beneficially owned shares of Sculptor common stock at the closing of the Merger on November 17, 2023 (the "Closing") and received, or were entitled to receive, the Public Merger Consideration for their "Eligible Shares." "Eligible Shares" will be the number of shares of Sculptor common stock held or beneficially owned by Eligible Class Members at the Closing and for which Eligible Class Members received, or were entitled to receive, the Public Merger Consideration. As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Public Merger Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 3, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: A.B Data Ltd. Email: info@SculptorStockholderLitigation.com Tel: 877-883-8091 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Ned Weinberger Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Tel: 866-640-7254 Email: delawaresettlements@labaton.com Dated: April 5, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE DELAWARE 1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at www.SculptorStockholderLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240402301953/en/ CONTACT: Ned Weinberger Tel: 866-640-7254 Email: delawaresettlements@labaton.com [GN] SELECT SOURCE: Faces Class Action Over FCRA and ICRAA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- morningstar.com reports that Potter Handy, renowned for its expertise in employment law and class action lawsuits, has filed a class action lawsuit against Select Source International (Select Source) on behalf of Plaintiffs Eugene Howard, Robert Williams, and other affected individuals. The suit alleges that Select Source willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), and Labor Code Section 432.7 for using expunged cases in employment decisions. The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of California, states that Select Source, a staffing agency based in San Diego, conducted background checks on potential employees without following the procedures required by the FCRA and ICRAA. Further, the Plaintiffs allege that the consumer reporting agency unlawfully reported convictions which had been expunged in violation of both the FCRA and ICRAA. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Select Source failed to provide proper disclosures and obtain written consent from job applicants before conducting background checks, and relying on expunged crimes to make employment decisions. In both instances, the Plaintiffs allege that they were denied significant employment opportunities based on background checks that included information that should never have been included in a lawful background check and should never have been considered by Select Source. The laws in question exist to allow individuals who have gone through the process of expungement to move on with their lives and continue to be productive members of society. As stated in the complaint, Select Source's actions violate federal and state laws that are put in place to protect job applicants from unfair hiring practices. The FCRA mandates employers to take specific steps before using consumer reports for employment purposes, including obtaining written consent from the applicant. Similarly, ICRAA requires employers to disclose their use of consumer reports and obtain authorization from the applicant before conducting background checks. And Labor Code §432.7 exists to protect individuals who, while they had criminal issues in the past, have gone through the process of expunging these crimes from their records. By failing to comply with these laws, Select Source has put individuals like Plaintiffs Howard and Williams at a disadvantage in the job market. Potter Handy Law Firm is determined to hold Select Source accountable for its willful violation of these laws. The firm believes that background checks should be conducted fairly and in accordance with regulations to prevent discrimination against individuals with dismissed cases on their record. This lawsuit seeks to not only provide justice for Plaintiffs Howard and Williams but also for other affected individuals who have faced similar discriminatory practices. "We are committed to protecting the rights of employees and ensuring that employers follow the law when conducting background checks," said Mark Potter, lead attorney at Potter Handy Law Firm. "We will not stand by as companies such as Select Source continue to disregard the rights of job applicants and violate crucial laws put in place to protect them." Potter Handy Law Firm urges anyone who has been denied employment by Select Source or any other company based on a dismissed case to come forward and join the class action lawsuit. For more information, please contact Potter Handy Law Firm at (415) 534-1911 or visit their website at www.potterhandy.com. About Potter Handy Law Firm: Potter Handy, LLP is a leading law firm due to its extraordinary record of precedent-setting cases. While Potter Handy’s advocacy has resulted in hundreds of published opinions, there are a score of such cases that wield tremendous influence. These cases -- many of first impression -- have shaped constitutional standing issues, damages analysis, the proper construction and interpretation of civil rights statutes and a variety of other hot-topic issues, and have been cited to by trial and appellate courts on more than 10,000 occasions. Potter Handy takes cases to judgment on average more than once a month. Mark Potter Jim Treglio (415) 534-1911 mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com [GN] SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Circuit Court Affirms Class Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP at JDSupra reports that on March 25, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a trial court decision dismissing a putative securities class action brought by investors against a biopharmaceutical company ("Company") and certain of its officers and executives, alleging violations Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5. In re Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 22-55641 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants made false statements about developments regarding the Company's new COVID-19 antibody treatment, which allegedly misled investors and the public to believe that the Company had discovered a "cure" for the virus in order to boost the Company's stock prices to improve its allegedly "dire financial situation." Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed plaintiff's claims without prejudice, holding that plaintiff had not plausibly pleaded falsity or scienter. The trial court entered judgment after plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading. The Plaintiff appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the allegedly misleading statements were inactionable puffery and (2) standing alone, the Company's allegedly poor financial position was not sufficient to warrant an inference of scienter. The Company, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, allegedly announced on May 15, 2020, that it had identified an antibody that demonstrated "100% inhibition" against the COVID-19 virus "in an in vitro virus infection experiment." The press release allegedly disclosed contemporaneously that the antibody was still in preclinical stages and had not received FDA approval. That same day, in interviews with several media outlets, the individual defendants allegedly made statements touting the Company's findings that the new antibody had demonstrated the ability to "100% completely prevent infection" and that, if approved, the antibody could end the need to socially distance. The Company's stock price allegedly "rose precipitously" on May 15. However, when, on May 20, 2020, several other media outlets published stories questioning the importance of the Company's development, the Company's stock price dropped. Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on November 30, 2021, which pressed claims against defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10-b(5). The gravamen of the complaint alleged that the Company falsely claimed to have developed a cure for COVID-19, purposefully misleading investors to invest in the Company so that it could raise capital it allegedly needed to stay afloat. The district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, finding plaintiff failed to plausibly allege falsity because the Company contemporaneously disclosed that its antibody was in the early stages of development and testing and because the allegedly misleading statements about the antibody's efficacy and potential at most amounted to inactionable "corporate optimism." It further found that the Company's need to raise funds did not give rise to a strong inference of scienter and that plaintiffs' failure to allege falsity further cut against an inference of scienter. The district court also dismissed the Section 20(a) claim for plaintiff's failure to state a predicate violation under Section 10(b). Reviewing the district court order de novo, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on both grounds. With respect to falsity, the Ninth Circuit concluded that, although defendants' "enthusiasm" for the new antibody "might have been overblown," taken within the context of the Company's surrounding disclosures, "their statements were not materially misleading." The Ninth Circuit found it particularly significant that both the Company's press release and statements by the individual defendants during interviews on May 15, 2020, allegedly expressed that the antibody still was in the early stages of development and testing. Hence, when read within their broader context, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff failed to show a reasonable person would construe the allegedly false statements to mean that the Company was representing that their antibody "without further testing, was an immediate cure for COVID-19." With respect to scienter, the Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiff's argument that the combination of (1) the individual defendants' alleged roles and access to testing data, (2) the allegedly "blatant falsity" of defendants' statements concerning the efficacy and potential of the antibody, and (3) the Company's allegedly "dire financial situation," taken together, sufficed to raise the requisite strong inference of scienter. First, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege that the individual defendants had access to any information about the antibody that was not disclosed by the Company in its press release. Second, the Court reiterated that plaintiff failed to show any of the defendants' alleged misstatements were objectively false and, thus, could not support a finding of scienter. Finally, the Court found that, although plaintiffs had alleged the Company "was clearly helped by the market's response to the announcement" about its antibody, plaintiff failed to identify "any particular improper or inflated sales." The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, without these complementary allegations, plaintiff could not plead a strong inference that the Company sought to improperly manipulate its stock price. [GN] SOUTHLAND TRANSIT: Vasquez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- SAUL VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated former and current aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV06877 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, meal and rest period violations, failure to pay vested vacation benefits, sick and COVID period/benefits violations, failure to maintain employee records, unreimbursed business expenses, release of claims for wage violations, reporting time violations, untimely payment of wages, failure to timely pay wages at separation, wage statements violations, misclassification, failure to pay regular rate of pay, and unfair business practices. Plaintiff Vasquez was hired by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt, hourly wage employee from October 2013 to April 2023. He performed various job duties, which included driving a bus, helping and assisting customers to and from wheelchairs. Southland Transit, Inc. is a community transit company that serves Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Andrina G. Hanson, Esq. Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 487-1998 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com andrina@mooradianlaw.com nanor@mooradianlaw.com STAR TRIBUNE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $2.9MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Star Tribune Media Co. has agreed to a $2.9 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming the newspaper illegally shared data related to subscribers' video-watching habits with Facebook. The settlement class consists of anyone in the United States who has or had a Facebook account and has or had a digital subscription or a home delivery subscription that includes digital access to the Star Tribune and who viewed videos on the Star Tribune's website between July 7, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that Star Tribune disclosed its digital subscriber's personally identifiable information to Facebook without permission, violating the Video Privacy Protection Act. The newspaper allegedly embedded a Meta Pixel tracker on its website, sending Facebook details of users' video viewing history. Star Tribune Media Co. is a locally owned media company serving Minnesota and the upper Midwest. It is the fifth-largest newspaper in the United States. While Star Tribune Media denies any allegations of wrongdoing, it has agreed to establish a settlement fund of $2.9 million to resolve the claims. Eligible class members can submit a claim form to receive a proportionate share of the settlement fund; the payout per claimant will depend on how many class members submit approved claims. The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement is May 6, 2024. A final approval hearing in the Star Tribune settlement will take place May 20, 2024. Who's Eligible Anyone in the United States who has or had a Facebook account and has or had a digital subscription or a home delivery subscription that includes digital access to the Star Tribune, and who viewed videos on the Star Tribune's website between July 7, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2024 Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/05/2024 Case Name Kyle Feldman v. Star Tribune Media Co. LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-01731-ECT-TNL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota Final Hearing 05/20/24 Settlement Website StarTribuneVPPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Feldman v. Star Tribune Media Co. LLC c/o Kroll Settlement Administration PO Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 Tel: 833-462-3508 Class Counsel Nicholas A Coulson LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON PC 975 E Jefferson Ave Detroit, MI 48207 Phone: +1 313-392-0015 Defense Counsel Jeffrey P Justman FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP 1470 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 Tel:+1 303 447 7700 [GN] TEVA CANADA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Appeal for Class Action Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------ torys.com reports that in Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the lower court's decision denying certification of a proposed product liability class action that claimed damages for a potential increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in the future. The Court's decision confirms that this type of alleged harm is not compensable, and also that proposed common issues must have a minimal evidentiary foundation to clear certification. What you need to know -- No compensation for risk "in the air". In order for a proposed class action in negligence to be viable, actual harm (compensable damage) must be alleged. Exposure to an increased risk of future harm is not compensable and, therefore, cannot ground a cause of action for a class action. -- Minimal evidentiary foundation for commonality. At certification, plaintiffs must provide some minimal evidentiary foundation to satisfy the common issue criterion. There must be some basis in fact that a proposed common issue actually exists for each member of the class before courts in Ontario will certify the claim. Background: the Palmer class action The plaintiffs sought to certify a proposed class action against the defendant pharmaceutical companies in respect of valsartan, a medication used to treat high blood pressure. In 2018, the defendants recalled certain lots of valsartan after discovering that the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which was supplied by a third party, had been contaminated with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA). The plaintiffs alleged that these compounds are toxic carcinogens and commenced a class action on behalf of people who were prescribed and ingested valsartan. While the plaintiffs advanced several causes of action, their principal claim was for negligent manufacture. The plaintiffs claimed damages for the potential increased risk of developing cancer or other adverse health effects in the future, as well as for mental distress over the fear of potentially suffering future adverse health effects. The plaintiffs also sought damages for the costs of medical screening and monitoring for early detection of adverse health effects, the costs of drugs thrown away after the recall and refunds for contaminated drugs consumed. At first instance, the motion judge denied certification, holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the cause of action, commonality and preferability criteria. No negligence "in the air" The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the plaintiffs failed to plead a viable cause of action in negligence as required by section 5(1)(a) of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act.2 The Court explained that actual damage is a necessary component of a claim in negligence: "there is no liability 'in the air' and no right to be free from the prospect of damage".3 Here, the plaintiffs were not alleging that they had actually been diagnosed with cancer or had actually experienced adverse health effects. Rather, the plaintiffs claimed there was an increased risk of this potentially happening in the future. The Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Babstock v. Atlantic Lottery, holding that exposure to an increased risk of injury or harm is not compensable in negligence. The plaintiffs' claim for damages based on mental distress was also not viable. While psychological injury over the fear of future harm could be compensable, such injury must rise above ordinary annoyances and be "serious and prolonged". The injury must also be reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude. Here, the plaintiffs failed to plead material facts demonstrating that the alleged mental distress rose above ordinary anxieties and fears. However, even if they had, the Court held that any such injury would not be foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude. The Health Canada recall notices announcing the contaminated valsartan acknowledged that there theoretically was a potential increased risk of developing cancer, but that this was between 0.0011% and 0.0086%. The recall notices advised that the baseline lifetime risk of developing cancer is already 50%. They also told individuals to continue taking their medication unless advised otherwise by a doctor. On these facts, the Court held that the recalls would not cause a person of reasonable fortitude to suffer a compensable level of psychological injury. Finally, the Court agreed with the motion judge that the plaintiffs' claim for costs of medical monitoring, costs of drugs thrown away after the recall and refunds for drugs consumed was likewise not viable. Damages for pure economic loss in negligence (i.e., in cases without bodily injury) are recoverable in only limited circumstances. When dealing with an alleged shoddy good, only expenditures for avoiding injury from a product that presents an imminent risk of physical harm can be claimed. The plaintiffs' pleading did not establish that the valsartan was imminently dangerous, and the damages the plaintiffs claimed were not for avoiding or repairing the alleged defect in the product. Indeed, the plaintiffs admitted discarding the contaminated valsartan. They therefore had no basis for recovery. No commonality The Court of Appeal also upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the common issue criterion under section 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act. In so doing, the Court affirmed the motion judge's analysis, which applied the two-step evidentiary framework for determining whether the plaintiffs' evidence meets the commonality requirement for certification. As we previously reported, the two-step framework requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a minimal evidentiary foundation for the proposed common issues. Plaintiffs must show that there is "some basis in fact" that (1) the proposed common issues actually exist, and (2) they are common across the class. Here, while there was some basis in fact that NDMA and NDEA cause an increased risk of developing cancer, there was no basis in fact that the alleged psychological injury from being notified of this increased risk was a common issue. In reviewing the evidence, the Court assessed both whether this issue existed (step 1) and whether it was common across the class (step 2): -- There was no basis in fact that this issue existed for all proposed class members. At most, the evidence demonstrated only a minority of the proposed class suffered mental distress that might be compensable. Indeed, the plaintiffs' own expert found that all proposed representative plaintiffs who were assessed had either recovered from any alleged psychological harm or did not suffer this harm at all. -- The Court also observed that claims for psychological damage are often inherently individualized. The Court affirmed the motion judge's conclusion that "the hard work remains for individual issues trials and the common issues trial is of marginal utility".4 In light of the analysis on the cause of action and commonality criteria, the Court declined to address preferability. Implications The Court of Appeal's decision draws a clear distinction between negligence cases dealing with actual harm and those dealing with the mere risk of harm. Proposed product liability class actions that claim damages based only on an increased risk of future harm will likely be difficult to certify. The Court of Appeal's decision also confirms that plaintiffs will need to show some minimal evidentiary foundation in order to satisfy the commonality criterion at certification. The existence of a proposed common issue will not be assumed on the basis of the plaintiffs' pleadings in Ontario. There must be some basis in fact that the issue actually exists for each member of the proposed class. This conclusion is consistent with emerging case law from other appellate courts, as we have discussed in a previous publication. FOOTNOTES 1. 2024 ONCA 220. 2. Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6. 3. Palmer, para. 47. 4. Palmer, para. 115.[GN] TICKETMASTER CANADA: Court Approves Insurance Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that The Quebec Superior Court has approved the settlement agreement reached in a class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster Canada LP and associated entities, along with CUMIS General Insurance Company, AZGA Insurance Agency Canada Ltd., and AZGA Service Canada Inc. The approved settlement resolves allegations that during the class period, the defendants sold "Event Ticket Protector" insurance in a misleading and deceitful manner, thus violating Quebec's Consumer Protection Act and the Competition Act. The class action was authorized for settlement purposes, with Mathieu Trudelle appointed as the representative plaintiff. The class encompasses individuals who purchased the disputed insurance using a billing address in Quebec between August 2, 2019, and March 31, 2023. In its ruling, the court approved a preliminary payment of $500,000 plus applicable taxes and disbursements for class counsel fees, postponing the final determination of the fees' reasonableness until the settlement administrator is prepared to distribute the settlement fund to the class members. The Superior Court noted that the social objectives of the class action procedure must always be considered when approving a settlement or class counsel fees: to facilitate access to justice, modify harmful conduct, and conserve judicial resources. The settlement agreement, valued at $3.3 million, covers class counsel fees, settlement expenses, and approved claims. Any remaining amount will be equally divided between two charities, as identified by the parties, ensuring no part of the settlement amount reverts to the defendants. Additionally, the agreement simplified the claims process for class members, allowing for refunds of the insurance price paid, including taxes, with the potential for receiving between 30 percent to 100 percent of the amount paid, subject to the number of claims approved. The court's decision came after the court evaluated the proposed settlement against established criteria to ensure its fairness and adequacy for the class members. The criteria include the likelihood of the action's success, the nature of the evidence, the settlement's terms, and the absence of objections to the agreement, among other considerations. [GN] TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Appeal In Ticketbots Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press, writing for saobserver.net, reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal by Ticketmaster and Live Nation, which face class-action lawsuits in multiple provinces for allegedly profiting from third-party ticket reselling. The case stems from allegations Ticketmaster facilitated mass ticket scalping in breach of its own terms of use and policy, allowing resellers to use automated "ticket bots" to scoop up event tickets beyond limits it imposes on individual buyers. The class-action lawsuit filed in B.C. was one of five launched against the companies in 2018 after media reports about Ticketmaster's activity in the secondary ticket market. The Toronto Star and the CBC published stories about an undercover investigation of Ticketmaster's pitch to so-called "ticket resellers" at a convention in Las Vegas in the summer of 2018. In a 2023 ruling from the B.C. Court of Appeal, the panel of judges laid out the background of what spurred the lawsuits in B.C., Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec. At the centre of the ensuing controversy was Ticketmaster's pitch to professional scalpers on the use of Tradedesk, an inventory software product used by resellers to "validate and manage" tickets they sell on the company's website. The media reports "suggested" that the company was touting the software to ticket resellers as a means of facilitating "mass scalping," which appeared to violate the Ticketmaster website's terms of use. In B.C., lead plaintiff David Gomel claims he paid about US$437 for tickets to a Bruno Mars concert in Vancouver scheduled for July 2017. Gomel bought the tickets from StubHub, a secondary seller of event tickets that competes with Ticketmaster. The lawsuits hinge, in part, on claims of a "general inflationary effect" on the secondary market for tickets, forcing people to pay more than face value, in violation of consumer protection legislation and the Competition Act. The class in British Columbia claims Ticketmaster wrongfully profited by facilitating ticket reselling, while falsely claiming that members of the public would have a "fair opportunity" to buy tickets at their face value rather than at inflated markups. In its submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada, Ticketmaster argued that its purchase policy and terms of use were agreements with individuals who used the company's website to buy tickets, rather than "representations" to the public at-large. The company claimed the B.C. Court of Appeal got it wrong when it allowed the class-action to move forward by turning a "consumer contract into a promise to a market at-large." Ticketmaster claimed in its Supreme Court of Canada submissions that the lawsuits it faces "have the potential to impact every business operating an e-commerce platform in Canada by vastly enlarging the kinds of claims they may face." The company claimed that hearing its appeal would give the high court "an opportunity to provide guidance on whether website terms of use are a sufficient factual basis for claims of misrepresentation to the public." The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the company's request to hear the appeal, upholding the B.C. Court of Appeal's July 2023 ruling. The company's lawyer, the B.C. law firm representing the class and lead plaintiff David Gomel did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN] TKO SHELBY: Trial Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff reports that the trial court's class certification order was internally inconsistent. We vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit after receiving a promotional flyer from a car dealership. They alleged that the flyer was deceptive and misled them into believing they won a free car or $20,000 cash. Instead, they received a $2 prize. Plaintiffs alleged that they and nearly 1,000 other people were harmed by the deceptive promotion. The trial court certified plaintiffs' case as a class action in a detailed written order, and defendants appealed. At oral argument, the parties acknowledged that the trial court's certification order is internally inconsistent. Specifically, the trial court's order used one class definition to analyze the certification criteria, then changed the definition when actually certifying the class. This inconsistency required us to vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. We could not engage in meaningful appellate review of a trial court order, particularly one that includes a discretionary component, when the order suffers from this type of internal contradiction. Because we vacated the order on this basis, we did not need to address all of defendants' arguments in this appeal, many of which may be mooted by entry of a new order. We limited our analysis to a few issues, such as conflicts of interest and efficiency concerns, that are likely to persist on remand even after the inconsistency is corrected. On remand, the trial court should examine whether the proposed class creates conflicts of interest and, if so, take appropriate steps to remedy the conflict, such as dividing the class into subclasses with separate counsel, or denying class certification of this proposed class altogether. On remand, the trial court should also examine the potential recovery available for each of plaintiffs' claims and assess whether some or all of those claims present the problem identified by Maffei, where the costs of litigating that claim so greatly exceeds class members' potential damages that it renders class certification prohibitively inefficient. If so, the court should consider whether, in its discretion, some or all of plaintiffs' claims are inappropriate for class certification. Reversed and remanded. Surgeon v. TKO Shelby LLC (Lawyers' Weekly No. 010-058-24, 16 pp.) (Richard Dietz, J.) Appealed from Superior Court, Gaston County (Forrest D. Bridges, J.) Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, by John F. Bloss and Frederick L. Berry, for plaintiff-appellees; Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon, Furr & Smith, P.A., by Michael L. Carpenter and D. Scott Hester, Jr.; Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, by Jeremy A. Stephenson; and Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP, by Curtis W. Dowling and Matthew G. Gerrald, for defendant-appellants. North Carolina Supreme Court [GN] TUSCANY 38: Salazar Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------ GLENN SALAZAR, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. TUSCANY 38, INC. d/b/a IL MONELLO, NY BESS CORP. d/b/a TUSCANY STEAKHOUSE, 244 RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a IL TINELLO EAST, SXB RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a IL TINELLO WEST, STEVE HAXHIAJ, and BEN CELAJ, Case No. 1:24-cv-02068 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2024) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid statutory minimum wage due to invalid tip credit, unpaid spread of hours premium, unlawfully retained gratuities, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a busboy from December 2022 until his termination in December 2023. Tuscany 38, Inc. is a New York-based Italian restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over RICO Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Jensen, writing for National Mortgage Professional, reports that borrowers filed a class action lawsuit against United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) and CEO Mat Ishbia, alleging the lender violated the RICO Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment among other claims. The lawsuit was filed on April 2 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the summons was issued April 3. The plaintiffs Therisa D. Escue, Billy Escue, Kim Schelbe, and Brian P. Weatherill, filed on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The lawsuit claims UWM should be held accountable "for orchestrating and executing a deliberate scheme, in coordination with a host of corrupted mortgage brokers, to cheat hundreds of thousands of borrowers out of billions of dollars in excess fees and costs that they paid to finance their homes." The plaintiffs state in the filing that independent mortgage brokers are meant to be independent, unlike a loan officer at a retail lender. "An 'independent' mortgage broker owes loyalty to the borrower, not the bank. And because the broker is not tied to any particular lending institution, the broker can collect and present options from many different lenders to ensure the borrower receives the most competitively priced options in their best financial interest," the lawsuit states. In 2021, UWM issued an ultimatum to all of its broker partners stating they can either choose to do business with UWM or their rivals, Rocket Pro TPO and Fairway Independent Mortgage, but cannot continue to do business with both. Since the ultimatum was issued, a number of lawsuits have been filed between brokers and UWM for allegedly violating the ultimatum. Broker partners who breach the ultimatum are required to pay liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000 per loan closed with UWM, or $50,000, whichever is greater. The lawsuit quotes Ishbia saying that UWM's broker partners are "completely independent" and that brokers have the ability to shop around among their choice of wholesale lenders. However, the complaint alleges that nearly half of all UWM mortgages are originated by brokers who refer 75% or more of their business to UWM. "Over the past three years, UWM has issued nearly $39 billion in mortgages through 'independent' brokers who refer 99% of their business to UWM. And during last year alone, more than 8,000 so-called 'independent' brokers funneled 99% or more of their mortgages to UWM, worth at least $11.7 billion," the lawsuit read. The lawsuit was filed the same day a new media firm, Hunterbrook, published an investigative article on UWM that contains similar allegations as those mentioned in the lawsuit. "Accountability requires action. That's why the Hunterbrook Foundation shared research with Boies Schiller Flexner -- and we hope homeowners have a path to restitution for what our data analysis indicates could be substantial damages," said Hunterbrook Media Publisher Sam Koppelman. The plaintiffs allege that the consequences of UWM's alleged misconduct have been "devastating," claiming that UWM rarely offered the best available pricing throughout the past four years and routinely charged fees that substantially exceeded their competitors' offerings to the tune of billions of dollars. UWM shared a statement with NMP in an email that read "The lawsuit filed is a sham. Although the real party behind it is a hedge fund named Hunterbrook, the lawyers concealed the hedge fund's involvement. Hunterbrook's business model is to sensationalize public information to manipulate the stock market, thereby enriching their wealthy funders at the expense of regular investors, many of whom are hard-working UWM employees. UWM will defend these allegations to the fullest extent permitted by law and stands with the thousands of independent mortgage brokers who serve the unique needs of borrowers across the country." The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an amount to be determined at trial. [GN] WALMART INC: Deadline to Submit Claims for Cash Payment Set June 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ apnews.com reports that if you purchased some weighted groceries or bagged fruit at Walmart in recent years, you may be eligible for a cash payment from a class action settlement with the retailer. The class action lawsuit, first filed in October 2022, alleges that Walmart shoppers across the U.S. and Puerto Rico who purchased certain sold-by-weight meat and seafood as well as select citrus sold in bulk bags paid more than the lowest price advertised in stores. Walmart has denied any wrongdoing -- but agreed to pay $45 million to settle the litigation. That means that impacted consumers can now submit claims for cash payments. "We will continue providing our customers everyday low prices to help them save money on the products they want and need," a spokesperson for the Bentonville, Arkansas, company stated. "We still deny the allegations, however we believe a settlement is in the best interest of both parties." Consumers can learn more about submitting a claim and the products that are covered on the settlement administrator's website. Cash payments are available for anyone who purchased these certain weighted meat, seafood and bagged citrus products -- which includes select oranges, grapefruit and tangerines -- at Walmart in the U.S. and Puerto Rico between October 19, 2018 and January 19, 2024. Payments will range in amount depending on each claim. It's possible to get some money even if you don't have a purchase receipt anymore. Consumers without a proof of purchase can receive between $10 and $25, depending on how many eligible products they attest to buying during the settlement class period. Meanwhile, those with receipts or other documentation could be entitled to get 2% of the total cost for each product they purchased -- at up to $500. Approved claimants will receive their payments electronically through Venmo, Zelle, ACH or a virtual pre-paid MasterCard -- but paper checks can also be requested those unable to receive payments electronically. The deadline to submit a claim is June 5, with a final approval hearing set for June 12. Objections and other comments to the settlement can be made through May 22. [GN] YETI COOLERS: Disclosed Private, Personal Info, Smith Says ---------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YETI COOLERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01703-RMI (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2024) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Plaintiff Smith purchased a Navy Rambler 36oz Water Bottle with Chug Cap from Defendant's website, www.yeti.com, on June 14, 2023. When purchasing the product on the website, the Plaintiff entered her personally identifiable information and credit card information to complete the transaction. When entering her PII and credit card information on the website, she reasonably expected that Defendant would keep this information private and not disclose it to third parties. However, Defendant disclosed such information to a third party, Adyen, without her knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff would not have completed a transaction on Defendant's website if she knew Yeti was disclosing her sensitive information to a third party, says the suit. Yeti Coolers, LLC develops, owns, and operates the website that sells coolers, bags, and drinkware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com [*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Filings Rose in 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------- A new report released April 3, 2024 by Cornerstone Research shows an increase of nearly 10% in the number of securities class action filings involving accounting allegations in 2023 compared to 2022. This growth occurred even though cases took longer to be filed, with the median filing lag reaching 43 days, the longest in a decade. The report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements -- 2023 Review and Analysis, also found that the total value of settlements increased 11% year-over-year despite a decrease in the number of settlements. Accounting Case Filings The number of accounting-related securities class action filings grew to 56 in 2023. Despite three years of consecutive increases, the number of cases filed remained below the historical average of 62. For defendant companies named in accounting case filings, the DDL Index, the dollar-value change in the defendant firm's market capitalization, more than doubled in 2023 to $76.9 billion. This was the second largest for accounting cases in the last 10 years and came amidst a 44% decline in total DDL for all federal securities class action filings in 2023. The increase was largely due to filings with a DDL of at least $5 billion, accounting for approximately half of the total accounting DDL. "While the DDL substantially increased in 2023 compared to 2022, the trend of plaintiffs filing accounting cases against smaller issuer defendants continued," said Frank Mascari, a report coauthor and a principal at Cornerstone Research. "At $719 million, the issuer defendant's median market capitalization in 2023 accounting case filings was 46% less than the 2014-2022 average and was the lowest in the last 10 years." Additional Filing Trends: -- Revenue recognition continued to be the most common GAAP violation alleged in 2023. -- The first-year dismissal rate of 2023 accounting case filings was 36% lower than the average first-year dismissal rate over the last 10 years. -- Accounting case filings in the Financial sector doubled in 2023, returning to historical levels. -- Accounting case filings involving financial statement restatements continued to rebound after a 10-year low in 2021, and they were the second highest in the last 10 years. Accounting Case Settlements The total value of accounting-related securities class action settlements increased slightly from $1.4 billion in 2022 to $1.6 billion in 2023. The increase was led, in part, by the presence of four mega settlements (equal to or greater than $100 million), which represented 65% of the total value of all accounting case settlements and resulted in the average settlement amount increasing from $33.3 million in 2022 to $45.7 million in 2023. In contrast, the median settlement amount declined from $16.1 million in 2022 to $15.0 million in 2023. Almost 90% of the total value of all accounting cases settled was attributable to settlements involving institutional lead plaintiffs. Despite the increase in value, there were just 35 accounting case settlements in 2023, an almost 19% decrease from 2022 and the third fewest observed over the last 20 years. "As discussed in our recent Securities Class Action Settlements -- 2023 Review and Analysis, securities class actions as a whole have recently settled at more advanced stages of litigation, contributing to a drop in the number of settlements," said Laura Simmons, a report coauthor and a Cornerstone Research senior advisor. "This is especially true for accounting class actions, which have progressed even further before settling than non-accounting cases. In particular, only 37% of accounting cases were settled before the motion for class certification was filed, compared to 54% of non-accounting cases." Additional Settlement Trends: -- In 2023, accounting case settlements with alleged GAAP violations but no internal control weaknesses hit a five-year peak. -- The size of issuer defendants in accounting cases settled in 2023, as measured by total median assets, decreased by 70%. -- In 2023, the number of settled accounting cases involving restatements fell to the lowest level since 1998. The number of accounting case settlements alleging internal control weaknesses declined to the lowest level in 10 years. -- Median "simplified tiered damages" in 2023 were lower for settlements involving accounting allegations than non-accounting cases. About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex disputes and regulatory investigations. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent academics and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistently high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis since 1989. The firm has over 900 staff in nine offices across the United States and Europe. Media Contact Liz Sobe, Cornerstone Research, 617.927-3176, liz.sobe@cornerstone.com, https://www.cornerstone.com/ [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***