/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240419.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 19, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 80 Headlines AG OF EC: Prince Sues Over Service Technicians' Unpaid Overtime AHS MANAGEMENT: Faces Epperson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach AMBASSADOR THEATRE: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. APPLE INC: Moody et al. Sue Over Smartphone Market Monopolization AT&T INC: Hearon et al. Sue over Inadequate Data Security Practices AT&T INC: Mathews Sues Over Unsecured Private Information AT&T INC: Rosario Seeks Damages & Relief for Massive Data Breach ATLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime AVOCADERIA LLC: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. BAYER AG: Updates Technology Use Agreement With Class Action Waiver BCAKENY LLC: Faces Colak Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation BEACH GAS: Sanchez Seeks PAGA Penalties for Labor Law Breaches BELFAST GASTRO: Hilbert Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages BLUEBIRD BIO: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 28 BLUECREW INC: Menefee Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. BLUEWATER REALTY: Jaenz Sues Over Worker Misclassification BUTERA’S FORNO: Medina Brings Claim for Labor Law Breaches CG ROXANE: Dotson Sues Over Contract-Related Violation CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Moore Seeks Damages for Securities Fraud CITY OF HOPE: Rodriguez Sues Over Private Data Breach CORNERSTONE TRADING: Richmond Warehouse Fire Suit Still Pending DELTA DENTAL: Ben Zvi et al. Conspiracy Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA: Gray Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Davis DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: NB Leave to File Supplement Tossed as Moot EL QUETZALITO: Mendez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ERICSSON INC: Faces Hammett Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Mass. FIRE MOUNTAIN: Frost Suit Asserts ADA Breach FLEMING NOLAN: Summary Judgement Bid in Data Breach Class Suit OK'd FOOT AND ANKLE: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. GARDA WORLD: Haley Seeks Damages Over Alleged Data Breach GARDAWORLD CASH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach GOOGLE INC: Faces New Incognito Mode Class Action After Settlement HOME DEPOT: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Tex. Over TCPA Violation IMMACULATA UNIVERSITY: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 14 J & K ROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Moreno Suit Claims J & K ROOFING: Reyes Seeks Roofing Laborers' Unpaid Wages JOMART CHOCOLATES: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. KELLER WILIAMS: Zebley Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract KENTUCKY STATE: Moore Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct. KINTARA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TuHURA KOHLS INC: Gray Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Tex. LAKESHORE RECYCLING: Faces Miller Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Potential Securities Class Action Suit L’OREAL USA: Faces O’Dea Suit Over Benzene in Acne Products M&D CAPITAL: Dixon Files Suit in E.D.N.Y Over Contract Violation MOREHEAD STATE: New Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct. NEW GREEN NUTRITION: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. NEW INDY: Court Hearing Over Plant Emissions Class Action Begins NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Ohio Derailment Class Action for $600MM OCUGEN INC: Class Suit Alleges Inadequate Proper Internal Controls ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Predatory Lending PFIZER CORP: Rothschild Sues Over Mislabeled Gabapentin Drug PPG INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Assembly Workers' Unpaid Wages PROGRESSIVE PIPELINE: Faces Lewis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. PUROVITE INC: Pineyrua Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA QUEBEC MAJOR: Superior Court Authorizes Hazing Class-Action Suit R1 RCM: Faces Hillbom Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach RANDOLPH COLLEGE: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation RB HEALTH: O'Dea Sues Over Benzene Presence in Acne Products RCI DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Matlock Claims RESTAURANTE UNIVERSAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guerra Alleges RIVERDALE SNF: Gordons Sue Over Labor Law Violations ROBERT FOX: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. S.J.B. CORP: Faces McDonald Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ala. SABINA'S DREAM: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Maids, Hatcher Says SANDOZ CANADA: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Class Action Cert SCOTTS CO: Perez Sues Over Insecticide Product's False Ads SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Giana Digital Copyright Infringement Suit SHEIN FASHION: Faces Digital Copyright Infringement Class Action SMBC NIKKO: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit SOLSTICE MARKETING: Anderson Files Suit Over ADA Breach SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Gore Suit Over Unprotected Sensitive Info SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Denies Arbitration in Suit TEE JAYE'S: Engages in Illegal Tip Scheme, Knox Suit Says TRUSPER INC: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Consumer Privacy Law Breach UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Settles Title IX Class-Action Suit WALMART INC: Faces Faison Suit Over Mislabeled Bed Sheet Products WEIRTON MEDICAL: Yano Files Suit Over Personal Property Damage ZF TRW: Court Denies Certification in Product Liability Class Suit [*] German Parliament to Debate Reform of Class Action Law [*] Illinois Employers Faces Surge of GIPA Class Action Lawsuits [*] New ERISA Class Actions Aim on Health Plan Fiduciary Obligation Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending Exposure Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Faces Personal Injury Cases ********* AG OF EC: Prince Sues Over Service Technicians' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- BAILEY PRINCE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AG OF EC INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00839 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs from Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida common law. The Plaintiff is a non-exempt current employee of Defendant who works as a HVAC service technician. Allegedly, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week during most weeks of his employment without being paid the federally mandated wage for overtime. Instead, Plaintiff is paid certain amounts for certain types of work in a piecework fashion, says the suit. Headquartered in Tampa, FL, AG of EC Inc., d/b/a AND Services, sells, maintains, services and installs HVAC systems within the Northern and Middle Districts of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com AHS MANAGEMENT: Faces Epperson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL EPPERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. dba ARDENT HEALTH SERVICES, Case No. 3:24-cv-00396 (M.D. Tenn., April 5, 2024) seeks relief and damages over Defendant's alleged failure to properly secure and protect sensitive information of its clients' patients. The Defendant is a healthcare entity that collects highly valuable private information on its systems, including sensitive personal information of its clients’ patients. On or about February 27, 2024, Defendant notified Plaintiff and Class members that their private information was compromised and illegally accessed due to a ransomware attack that was discovered by Defendant on November 23, 2023. The notice letter did not include key details about the data breach, including the identity of the perpetrators, the root cause of the data breach, and the remedial measures undertaken by Defendant to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The Plaintiff and Class members, as patients at Defendant's clients, relied on Defendant's promise to provide confidentiality and adequate security for their personal data. According to Plaintiff, Defendant did not fulfill that promise as it failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices to safeguard Plaintiff and Class members’ sensitive information. Allegedly, the data breach was a direct result of that failure. Plaintiff now brings a claim for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment, says the suit. Headquartered in Brentwood, TN, AHS Management Company is a leading provider of healthcare services in communities across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com AMBASSADOR THEATRE: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ambassador Theatre Group US Holdings, Inc. The case is captioned as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Ambassador Theatre Group US Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02370 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ambassador Theatre Group US Holdings, Inc. operates as a live-theatre company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st ave Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com APPLE INC: Moody et al. Sue Over Smartphone Market Monopolization ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY MOODY, ALFREDO DE LA HOZ, and ENRIQUE FINKELSTEIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04560 (D.N.J., April 4, 2024) arises from the Defendant's conduct of unlawfully maintaining its monopoly power in the smartphone market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Apple reduces competition in the markets for performance smartphones and smartphones generally by delaying, degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would increase competition in the smartphone markets. Apple has used certain mechanisms to suppress technologies that would provide a high-quality user experience on any smartphone. These technologies include super apps, cloud streaming game apps, messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets. Moreover, Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual restrictions that it selectively enforces through its control of app distribution and its "app review" process, as well as by denying access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone's operating system, called Application Programming Interfaces, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class seek all remedies available under the Clayton Act, including, injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to Clayton Act Section 16. Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple is a global technology company with a market capitalization over $2.5 trillion. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com AT&T INC: Hearon et al. Sue over Inadequate Data Security Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAN HEARON, GERI SHERWOOD, and KYLIN SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00818-X (N.D. Tex., April 4, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to customers' personally identifiable information and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, bailment, and for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Plaintiffs received AT&T's data breach notice on or around March 30 and March 31, 2024, informing them that their PII was compromised in the data breach. As a result of AT&T's data breach, the Plaintiffs face a lifetime risk of identity theft, as it includes sensitive information that cannot be changed, like their Social Security numbers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to remedy for all the harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated and "impacted" individuals whose private Information was accessed during the data breach. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T is an American multinational telecommunications company providing cellular, broadband internet, and related services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendal, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com AT&T INC: Mathews Sues Over Unsecured Private Information --------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00824-K (N.D. Tex., April 4, 2024) arises out of the recent revelation of a cyberattack and data breach that was perpetuated against AT&T and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff received the Notice Letter, by email, directly from Defendant, dated March 30, 2024. According to the Notice Letter, the Plaintiff's private information was improperly accessed and obtained by unauthorized third parties, including his full name, date of birth, health information, and Social Security number. The Plaintiff has suffered numerous, substantial injuries including, but not limited to, invasion of privacy and theft of his private information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T offers wireless communications, data/broadband and internet services, local and long-distance telephone services, telecommunications equipment, managed networking, and wholesale services. AT&T also develops, produces, and distributes feature films, television, gaming, and content in physical and digital formats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Larry A. Golston, Jr., Esq. Leon Hampton, Esq. Jessi Haynes, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: larry.golston@beasleyallen.com leon.hampton@beasleyallen.com jessi.haynes@beasleyallen.com AT&T INC: Rosario Seeks Damages & Relief for Massive Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- AURORA ROSARIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00793-E (N.D. Tex., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to adequately protect its customers' personally identifiable information which gave rise to a massive data breach. The Plaintiff's PII had been compromised in a data breach experienced by Defendant in 2019. The Defendant only began informing affected individuals of the data breach on or about March 30, 2024, approximately five years after the incident. The notice letter lacks some crucial information regarding the data breach, including how it occurred, what steps Defendant took following the incident, or whether Plaintiff’s and Class members' PII remains in the possession of criminals, says the suit. The data breach was allegedly brought about by Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard its customers' PII. As a result, Plaintiff and Class members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The Plaintiff brings a claim for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. AT&T Inc. is an international telecommunications company headquartered in Dallas, TX. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JOE KENDALL, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Justin C. Walker, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jwalker@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com ATLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Telecommunications LLC. The case is captioned as Robert Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlas Telecommunications LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-03018-TLB (W.D. Ark., March 29, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged denial of overtime compensation. Atlas Telecommunications LLC is a telecommunication company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Burks, Esq. WH LAW, PLLC 1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 255-7577 Facsimile: (501) 222-3027 E-mail: chris@wh.law AVOCADERIA LLC: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avocaderia, LLC. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Avocaderia, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02308 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Avocaderia, LLC is an eatery based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com BAYER AG: Updates Technology Use Agreement With Class Action Waiver ------------------------------------------------------------------- Aimee Nielson, writing for Seed World, reports that Bayer recently announced the inclusion of a class action waiver in its Technology Use Agreement (TUG). The waiver requires customers to forego their right to participate in class action lawsuits against Bayer, opting instead for individual arbitration in case of disputes. Bayer's stewardship lead Jacob Prather says Bayer communicated the update to dealers and growers earlier this year. Bayer's Canadian customers are unaffected, the company noted. "As a company focused on agriculture, we understand that our success depends on our customers' success," Prather says. "These updates will help preserve the value of our technologies so that growers can count on them for generations to come." Prather said the class action waiver is only one of several updates to the TUG. "Similar to technology agreements growers may have with other trait providers, the TSA, available in 2024, includes a class action waiver in Section 4(f), where both the grower and Bayer agree not to participate in class actions against the other and, in the case of grower, against authorized seed sellers," he says. "To be clear, the class action waiver does not prevent growers from bringing a lawsuit against Bayer or authorized seed sellers." The introduction of the class action waiver has sparked debate among legal experts and consumer advocacy groups. Some argue that it could restrict customers' ability to seek redress for legitimate grievances, while others see it as a practical solution to streamline dispute resolution. Prather assures customers that they may still pursue individual arbitration even if they have agreed to the class action waiver. Growers should consult state agriculture laws or regulations to understand any prerequisites to maintaining a legal action, such as arbitration. The complete terms of the agreement are available at AgCelerate.com and tug.bayer.com. [GN] BCAKENY LLC: Faces Colak Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BCAKENY, LLC. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BCAKENY, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02306 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BCAKENY, LLC is cake shop based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com BEACH GAS: Sanchez Seeks PAGA Penalties for Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS M. SANCHEZ, an individual v. BEACH GAS INC, a business entity form unknown; HOOMAN NISSANI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08226 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cashier and general laborer for approximately four to five years, until approximately December 15, 2023. He asserts that throughout his employment, Defendants willfully committed multiple labor law violations, including, among others, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay meal and rest period compensation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay wages upon discharge, and retaliation. The Plaintiff also accuses Defendants of unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code, as well as disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in good faith, interactive process under FEHA. The Plaintiff now seeks penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act for Defendants' alleged Labor Code violations. Beach Gash Inc is a gas station ownership and management company based in Santa Monica, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 Email: contact@slawla.com BELFAST GASTRO: Hilbert Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacki Hilbert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Belfast Gastro Pub Inc., David Crowe, an individual, Robert Fortier, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02515 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Hilbert was employed by the Defendants as a bartender from on or about January 2022 through February 2023. He asserts that he worked more than 40 hours in a week but was not paid for proper minimum and overtime wages. Headquartered in Lindenhurst, NY, Belfast Gastro Pub Inc. operates a bar and restaurant located in Suffolk County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Nardo, Esq. RAYMOND NARDO, P.C. 129 Third St Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 248-2121 E-mail: Nardo@Raynardo.com BLUEBIRD BIO: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird bio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of bluebird bio investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between April 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=74897&wire=4 BLUE investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on December 8, 2023, Blue announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its drug Lyfgenia (lovotibeglogene autotemcel), also known as lovo-cel for the treatment of sickle cell disease in patients ages 12 and older who have a history of vaso-occlusive events (VOEs). However, the Lyfgenia approval came with a black box warning for haematological malignancies after two patients developed AML during the clinical trials. Analysts noted that they did not expect the black box warning or the absence of a priority review voucher. Following this news, Blue's stock price fell by $1.95 per share, or approximately 40% to close at $2.86 per share. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in bluebird bio during the relevant time frame, you have until May 28, 2024 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall St 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: +1 212-363-7500 [GN] BLUECREW INC: Menefee Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluecrew, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Robert Dwayne Menefee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bluecrew, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. CGC24613459 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., March 28, 2024). The case alleges Defendants' failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay for all hours worked, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, and violations of Unfair Competition Law and Private Attorneys General Act. A case management conference is scheduled for August 28, 2024 before Judge Anne-Christine Massullo. Bluecrew, Inc. provides software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. 13428 Maxella Ave, # 984 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-5620 BLUEWATER REALTY: Jaenz Sues Over Worker Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Maria Jaenz and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Bluewater Realty Miami LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-21270 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Bluewater Realty employed Plaintiff Rosa Maria Jaenz as a housekeeper from approximately March 01, 2022, to March 03, 2024, or 105 weeks. However, Bluewater Realty wrongly classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. As a result, Plaintiff did not receive any additional payment for overtime hours even if she worked regularly more than 40 hours weekly, says the suit. Based in Broward County, Florida, Bluewater Realty is a property management and vacation rental specialist. The company operates AIRBNB and VRBO's vacation properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BUTERA’S FORNO: Medina Brings Claim for Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------ MARCOS MEDINA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BUTERA'S FORNO INC., MARTIN BUTERA, GARY BUTERA, and NICHOLAS ZOGRAFOS, Case No. 2:24-cv-02604 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from in or about June 2022 to in or about February 2024. Plaintiff also performed non-exempt duties for Defendants, including preparing food and cooking. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but he did not receive overtime compensation as Defendants paid him a fixed salary in cash regardless of the actual number of hours worked by Plaintiff each workweek. The Defendants allegedly committed several other labor law violations, including failure to pay spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide an accurate written notice of pay rate, and failure to provide accurate wage statements, says the suit. Located in Bayshore, NY, Butera's Forno Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com CG ROXANE: Dotson Sues Over Contract-Related Violation ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CG Roxane LLC. The case is captioned as Michael Dotson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CG Roxane LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02567-JFW-MAR (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged contract-related violation. CG Roxane LLC is a privately held, family-owned and operated enterprise and bottled water company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Samantha E. Fahr, Esq. Michael J. Duvall, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 E-mail: samantha.fahr@dentons.com michael.duvall@dentons.com CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Moore Seeks Damages for Securities Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS, INC., JAMES F. OLIVIERO, and GARRETT GRAY, Case No. 1:24-cv-02613 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Checkpoint securities between March 10, 2021 and December 15, 2023. Throughout that period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding Checkpoint's business, operations, and compliance policies. In particular, Checkpoint allegedly overstated the manufacturing, regulatory, and commercial prospects of its lead antibody product candidate, cosibelimab. When the truth emerged, Checkpoint's market value declined, causing significant losses and damages to Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit. Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage immunotherapy and targeted oncology company based in Waltham, MA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com CITY OF HOPE: Rodriguez Sues Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- GRACIELA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a CITY OF HOPE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02761 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of its current and former patients and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Privacy Act, California Customer Records Act, and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. For one-hundred days -- between July 7, 2023, and October 15, 2023 -- Defendant was hacked. But Defendant was unable to detect the data breach until October 13, 2023. The Defendant waited over until April 2, 2024, before it began notifying the class--a full 270 days after the data breach began. As a result, Plaintiff and the class were deprived of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner, says the suit. Headquartered in Duarte, CA, City of Hope National Medical Center is a medical treatment and research organization with locations in California, Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: andrewg@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com CORNERSTONE TRADING: Richmond Warehouse Fire Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed in response to the large warehouse fire in Richmond is still pending one year after the fire. April 11 marks one year since the massive fire that resulted in the evacuation of more than 2,000 people in the Richmond community. On April 20, 2023, Tushawn Craig, Marquetta Stokes, and Limitless Pallets filed a class action lawsuit against the property owners, Seth Smith and Cornerstone Trading Group. They all own property that was part of the evacuation zone of the April 2023 fire, records show. As WRTV Investigates reported, the city cited Smith and Cornerstone Trading following a 2019 inspection that found fire hazards. The city has claimed Smith is responsible for the fire. The lawsuit alleges Smith and Cornerstone Trading were negligent by failing to address "ultra-hazardous conditions" within the facility. The class action lawsuit was originally filed in Wayne Superior Court, but was transferred to federal court. Trevor Crossen, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he's currently waiting for a ruling on whether the case will stay in federal court or get sent back to Wayne County. Former Richmond Mayor Dave Snow and city attorney Andrew Sickman were subpoenaed in connection to the lawsuit. [GN] DELTA DENTAL: Ben Zvi et al. Conspiracy Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled Justin Ben Zvi, DDS, Alina Lukashevsky, DDS, and Adam Merriam, DDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Delta Dental of New York Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-5628, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 2, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02621 to the proceeding. The case arises from the alleged conspiracy and illegal agreements of Delta Dental Plan Association and its members and affiliates of members to allocate territories of operation within the United States and its territories--in violation the Sherman Act 3 and the Donnelly Act. Delta Dental of New York Inc. offers dental insurance plans in New York. The insurance agency is part of the Delta Dental Plans Association. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: William J. Foley, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019-6142 Telephone: (212) 506-5000 Facsimile: (212) 506-5151 E-mail: wfoley@orrick.com DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dinosaur Restaurants, LLC. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dinosaur Restaurants, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02309 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dinosaur Restaurants, LLC offers dining and restaurant services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA: Gray Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Davis ------------------------------------------------------------------- Karone Gray, David L. Hailes and Lorraine Kelly filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Ronda Davis, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-01564-RC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The initial Complaint in this matter was filed over 13 years ago, alleging that the District of Columbia made personnel cuts that discriminated against African American employees. This action has already been through several rounds of summary judgment and an appeal, and the Court's most recent opinion concluded that Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of racially discriminatory disparate impact. Now, the District of Columbia brings another motion for summary judgment, claiming that the terminations were justified by business necessity and that no dispute of any material fact remains. On Feb. 23, 2024, Judge Rudolph Contreras entered a memorandum opinion granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Contreras held that Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) "did not validate or attempt to validate the process by which they carried out the reduction-in-force (RIF)," but it is unclear to the Court how an employer is supposed to "validate" its approach to eliminating specific positions from its workforce during a RIF. "The Court imagines that Plaintiffs would have perhaps preferred some type of purely objective criteria for eliminating personnel--but Plaintiffs do not say what that would be, how it would have served CFSA's business needs, or how it would have reduced the purported disparate impact. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment for the District on Plaintiffs' remaining claim," Judge Contreras wrote in his 46-page Memorandum Opinion. The appellate case is captioned Karone Gray, et al. v. DC, Case No. 24-7038, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on March 26, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KARONE GRAY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Donald Melvin Temple, Esq. TEMPLE LAW OFFICE 1310 L. Street, NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 628-1101 Plaintiffs-Appellees RONDA L. DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David L. Rose, Esq. ROSE LEGAL ADVOCATES 1726 M. Street, NW, Suite 203 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 331-8555 - and - Aderson Francois, Esq. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 661-6721 - and - Karla Mari McKanders, Esq. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 131 21st Avenue South, Suite 207 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 322-1529 - and - Donald Melvin Temple, Esq. TEMPLE LAW OFFICE 1310 L. Street, NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 628-1101 Defendant-Appellee DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is represented by: Richard P. Sobiecki, Esq. Office of the Attorney General District of Columbia 400 6th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 805-7512 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: NB Leave to File Supplement Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NB et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-01511 (D.D.C., Filed Sep 7, 2010), the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their second renewed motion for class certification with four additional declarations, in light of the court's denial of the class certification motion without prejudice. -- If the Court grants leave to amend and sets new deadlines for briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to submit the new declarations as part of the updated briefing. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] EL QUETZALITO: Mendez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL MEJIA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EL QUETZALITO CORP. (D/B/A LA CHAPINCITA - EL QUETZALITO), CHAPILANDIA DELI CORP. (D/B/A EL QUETZALITO 2), ELIU VELASQUEZ, and SAQUEO VELASQUEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-02576 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024) seeks unpaid wages, spread-of-hours pay, and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery worker from approximately August 2022 until on or about September 6, 2023. Despite his designation as a delivery worker, the Plaintiff was also required to spend a considerable part of his workday performing non-tipped duties. The Defendants allegedly employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker rather than a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate. Additionally, the Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours without paying them the required minimum wage and overtime compensation, says the suit. El Quetzalito Corp is engaged in the deli business and is located in Ave Corona, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ERICSSON INC: Faces Hammett Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY HAMMETT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERICSSON, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10882-NMG (D. Mass., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts labor laws. The Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former hourly Tower Technicians who worked for Defendant anywhere in the United States at any time from April 5, 2021 through the final disposition of this case. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant adopted an illegal pay system wherein Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were not properly paid for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours per workweek. They were also not provided with meal breaks and were not compensated for all of their time spent performing mandatory online training. The Plaintiff further seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other damages under the FLSA and the state laws of Massachusetts. Headquartered in Boston, MA, Ericsson, Inc. operates as a provider of telecommunications equipment and related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline, Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com FIRE MOUNTAIN: Frost Suit Asserts ADA Breach -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fire Mountain Gems and Beads Inc. The case is captioned as Clarence Frost and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fire Mountain Gems and Beads Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-01102-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., March 28, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fire Mountain Gems and Beads Inc. designs and supplies gems, as well as beads.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason D Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 101 St. Michael, MN 55376 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com - and - Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC 222 South Ninth Street, Ste 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Facsimile: (763) 226-2515 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com FLEMING NOLAN: Summary Judgement Bid in Data Breach Class Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., writing for DuaneMorris.com, reports that in Austin v. Fleming, Nolen & Jez, LLP, No. 4:23-CV-00901, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60696 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2024), Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment in a data breach class action. The Court found that the time Plaintiff's allegations about the time spent -- (i) researching the data breach, (ii) exploring credit monitoring and identity theft options, (iii) self-monitoring her accounts, and (iv) seeking legal counsel -- were not compensable damages and could not support her claims. This case serves as an important reminder that named Plaintiffs in data breach class actions must have suffered an actual, viable, concrete injury to sustain their claims. Case Background On February 6, 2023, a cybercriminal breached Defendant's servers and obtained some of its confidential client data. The cybercriminal then demanded Defendant pay money to avoid the publication of Defendant's confidential client data on the dark web. After Defendant sent out data breach notice letters to their potentially affected clientele, the named Plaintiff, a former client of Defendant, filed a class action complaint against Defendant asserting claims for negligence, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had not, and could not, establish that she had suffered any damages as a result of the data breach. In response, Plaintiff presented an affidavit from a putative class member who had suffered monetary damages due to identity theft. The Court's Decision The Court ruled that Plaintiff could not rely on a putative class member's purported damages to support her claims prior to class certification, and as such, any evidence supporting the claims of other class members was "irrelevant." As a result, the Court only considered Defendant's motion for summary judgment as it pertained to Plaintiff's individual claim against the Defendant. The Court held that none of the following allegations of harm were sufficient for Plaintiff to maintain her claims -- "time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the data breach, exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options, self-monitoring her accounts and seeking legal counsel regarding her options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the data breach." Accordingly, the Court found that because Plaintiff could not show "that she was injured by the data breach" or that "she suffered any damages," summary judgment was proper. Implications For Companies The Court's ruling in Austin v. Fleming underscores the importance of damages and a viable injury-in-fact in data breach class actions. The first line of defense in any data breach class action challenging whether the named Plaintiff suffered an actual, concrete injury. Used effectively, companies can parlay a Plaintiff's claimed damages in data breach class actions as quick off-ramp out of litigation. [GN] FOOT AND ANKLE: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot and Ankle Center of Fort Lee, LLC. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Foot and Ankle Center of Fort Lee, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02305 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Foot and Ankle Center of Fort Lee, LLC is a medical group practice located in Forest Hills, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com GARDA WORLD: Haley Seeks Damages Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH TYLER HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORP., UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC, AND GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 9:24-cv-80418 (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of inadequate data security which led to a data breach affecting tens of thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and was employed by Defendants in 2022. This action arises from Defendants' alleged failure to adequately protect the highly sensitive information of Plaintiff and similarly situated persons, which resulted in a data breach. Due to Defendants' inadequate data security procedures and non-compliance with Federal Trade Commission guidelines, Plaintiff and Class members' personal identifying information was exfiltrated by cybercriminals on November 16, 2023. Affected individuals were only made aware of the incident approximately four months later on March 22, 2024, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide timely notice to the data breach victims, depriving them of the chance to take prompt measures and mitigate harm. As a result, Plaintiff and Class members now face a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff seeks injunction, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any further relief for Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct. Garda World Security Corp provides security and patrolling services and is headquartered in Montreal, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042-2754 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com jnixon@simonlawpc.com GARDAWORLD CASH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that GardaWorld Cash faces a proposed class action over a 2023 cyberattack that compromised the private data of more than 39,000 individuals. According to the 47-page GardaWorld Cash data breach lawsuit, an unauthorized third party gained access to certain administrative files stored in some of the company's facility systems in Florida between October 30 and November 16, 2023. Per the suit, the cyberattack exposed individuals' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers and insurance and health-related information. The case contends that GardaWorld Cash, a Florida-based company that provides cash automation solutions for businesses, negligently failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity protocols and monitor its computer network for unauthorized activity. The complaint argues that had the company properly encrypted the personal data in its care and adequately monitored its systems, it could have prevented the incident entirely or at least detected it sooner. The filing claims that as a result of the defendant's negligence, victims' private information is now "in the hands of data thieves," which greatly increases their chances of being targeted for cybercrimes such as identity theft and fraud. The data breach lawsuit adds that although GardaWorld Cash purports to have discovered the incident in November 2023, the company did not begin to notify impacted individuals until March 2024. As the suit tells it, this delay reduced victims' ability to mitigate the consequences of the unauthorized disclosure of their sensitive information. "Time is of the essence when trying to protect against identity theft after a data breach, so early notification is critical,” the case says. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the data breach discovered by GardaWorld Cash on or about November 16, 2023. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Faces New Incognito Mode Class Action After Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ethan Baron of The Mercury News reports that Google's legal troubles over whether the search giant duped users into believing its "Incognito" browsing mode was truly private aren't over yet: A week after settling a federal class-action suit, the Mountain View company is facing an avalanche of new lawsuits in San Jose from thousands of users who claim Incognito broke their trust by snooping on their secrets. The thousands of claims, seeking at least $10,000 each, could be just the tip of the iceberg, according to experts. But proving they were harmed and getting Google to pay up could require aggrieved Incognito users to bare their browsing habits -- from personal finance to porn. Last week, the New York City-based law firm Boies Schiller Flexner announced in a court filing it had reached a settlement with Google on behalf of an estimated 136 million people in the U.S. who used Incognito. The deal required Google to delete or redact billions of records and change the language on the mode's opening page. Google's public response to the settlement reflected the bitterness of the bruising four-year court battle in Oakland U.S. District Court: "The plaintiffs originally wanted $5 billion and are receiving zero," a spokesman said. Now the same law firm is rounding up plaintiffs by the thousands -- including hundreds in the Bay Area -- to sue Google on similar claims in state court in San Jose. "A lot of these companies have been in the news for the last few years for capturing a lot more data than users thought they were," said plaintiff and Stanford University senior Eugene Lo. "I am used to them doing misleading things. I still wanted them to have consequences." Boies Schiller Flexner has filed more than 90 lawsuits over the past 12 days in Santa Clara County Superior Court in San Jose, each with 50 plaintiffs, accusing Google of breaking state privacy and computer-fraud laws. Many more state court lawsuits are likely to follow, said Santa Clara University School of Law professor Eric Goldman. "This is like a perpetual motion machine if we're dealing with hundreds of millions of potential plaintiffs," Goldman said. The lawsuits repeat allegations from the federal-court action launched in 2020, including that Google knows "the most intimate and potentially embarrassing things you browse on the internet -- regardless of whether you follow Google's advice to keep your activities 'private,'" and that "George Orwell could never have dreamed it." Plaintiffs may not be able to win their cases or establish damages without revealing the way they used Incognito, Goldman said. For example, a user who employed Incognito to limit exposure of their banking information would not have a strong damages claim without evidence their financial data was compromised. Someone who used the mode to surf pornography and lost their job or spouse because their surfing was somehow publicly revealed, he said, may have a case for high damages. But if someone used Incognito to watch porn with no negative personal outcome, the case for compensation is undercut, Goldman said. Information that Boies Schiller Flexner obtained via the federal case features prominently in the new lawsuits to back the claim that Google knew it was duping Incognito users into thinking the company would not retain browsing information, while it secretly grabbed and profited from the data. Google called the new lawsuits "meritless" -- as it did regarding the federal case after the settlement was announced -- and added, "we will defend ourselves vigorously." The lawsuits refer to a purported 2014 Google internal email recommending changes to Incognito so "we don't deceive users," along with a 2015 internal email calling Incognito "a lie." A 2020 internal document allegedly said "common misconceptions" about Incognito included belief that it "hides browsing activity from Google." The federal court judge who oversaw the recently settled lawsuit, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in an order last year agreed with the plaintiffs in that case that anyone using Incognito on Google's Chrome browser could reasonably deduce from the opening screen that Google would not take their data. As a result of the settlement and negotiations in the federal case, Google has changed Incognito mode's opening page, replacing the words "now you can browse privately" with "you can browse more privately." The deal does not stop the company from gathering Incognito data. Google, the new lawsuits alleged, builds detailed, "cradle-to-grave" profiles of individual internet users by tracking internet, phone and app activity, and identifying devices. It also receives users' data -- including that generated during Incognito browsing -- from websites using Google advertising technology. Through its algorithms and artificial intelligence, the company can in many cases link Incognito mode browsing data to individual profiles, the lawsuits claimed. "Doing so improves the 'profiles' and allows Google to sell more targeted ads at those users," the lawsuits alleged. "Because of Google's pervasive presence on the internet, its unparalleled reach and its uncanny ability to so target consumers, advertisers are willing to pay a premium for Google's advertisement services." Google, which made $238 billion in advertising revenue last year according to its annual report, said this week, "We never associate data with users when they use Incognito mode." Boies Schiller Flexner argues that users should be compensated for Google's collection of users' Incognito data for profit, allegedly deceptively. Google will likely counter that plaintiffs suffered no financial damages or other harms requiring payment, Goldman said. Other law offices may piggy-back off the New York firm and recruit plaintiffs to make similar claims against Google in state court, leading to complex court battles as law firms angle for damages, Goldman said. "At that point," Goldman said, "chaos ensues." [GN] HOME DEPOT: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Tex. Over TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Home Depot USA, Inc. The case is captioned as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-01123 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2024). The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Home Depot USA, Inc. is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 S Highland Ave., Ste 200 Lomgard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com IMMACULATA UNIVERSITY: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immaculata University. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Immaculata University, Case No. 1:24-cv-02369 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Immaculata University is a private Roman Catholic university in East Whiteland Township, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Innoviz Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ:INVZ) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/innoviz-technologies-ltd-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=75195&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Innoviz Technologies Ltd. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between April 21, 2021 and February 28, 2023. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Innoviz had overstated the benefits that the Company was likely to derive from its purported contracts, partnerships, and/or collaborations with automotive companies; (ii) as a result, the Company was unlikely to achieve the level of profitability that defendants had represented to investors; (iii) accordingly, Innoviz had overstated its business and/or financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Innoviz Technologies stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/innoviz-technologies-ltd-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=75195&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] J & K ROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Moreno Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK L. MORENO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. J & K ROOFING INC, and JULIO C. RUBIO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60526 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act . The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, full-time driver from approximately September 01, 2023, to March 06, 2024, or 27 weeks. During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff always worked more than 40 hours weekly. However, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime hours, as required by law. Additionally, Defendants deducted five hours of lunchtime weekly despite Plaintiff not taking bonafide lunchtime hours, says the suit. Based in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida, J & K Roofing Inc. is a general construction contractor specializing in new roofing construction, roofing replacement, and roofing restorations for residential, commercial, and industrial properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com J & K ROOFING: Reyes Seeks Roofing Laborers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- ENDER P. REYES, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. J & K ROOFING INC, and JULIO C. RUBIO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60523-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a roofing laborer from approximately December 04, 2023, to March 05, 2024, April 29, 2023, or 13 weeks. During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff always worked more than 40 hours weekly. However, he was only paid for all his working hours at his regular rate. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime hours at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, in violation of the FLSA, the suit alleges. Based in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida, J & K Roofing Inc. is a general construction contractor specializing in new roofing construction, roofing replacement, and roofing restorations for residential, commercial, and industrial properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com JOMART CHOCOLATES: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jomart Chocolates Corp. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jomart Chocolates Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-02307 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jomart Chocolates Corp. is family-owned and operated chocolate factory.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com KELLER WILIAMS: Zebley Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keller Wiliams Realty, Inc. The case is captioned as David "Beau" Zebley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Keller Wiliams Realty, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00400-MN (D. Del., March 28, 2024). The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract. The case is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Keller Wiliams Realty, Inc. is an American technology and international real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kevin Astin, Esq. CIARDI CIARDI & ASTIN 1204 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-7444 E-mail: dastin@ciardilaw.com KENTUCKY STATE: Moore Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- TERRANCE MOORE has filed an appeal on March 26, 2024, in the Kentucky Supreme Court. The appellate case is captioned Terrance Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kentucky State University, Case No. 2024-SC-0122. The case type is stated as transfer request-party.[BN] Plaintiff-Movant TERRANCE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andre Fereole Regard, Esq. Ivey Lorraine Workman, Esq. REGARD LAW GROUP PLLC Lexington, KY 40511 Defendant-Respondent KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by: Joshua Michael Salsburey, Esq. Kevin Gudgel Henry, Esq. STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC Lexington, KY 40507 KINTARA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TuHURA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Kintara Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: KTRA), relating to its proposed merger with TuHURA Biosciences, Inc. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? 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] KOHLS INC: Gray Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohls, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Melissa A. Gray, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kohls, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:24-cv-00327 (W.D. Tex., March 28, 2024). The case is brought over the Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Kohls, Inc. is an American department store retail chain, operated by Kohl's Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED 539 W. Commerce St., Ste 1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (972) 767-9099 E-mail: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com LAKESHORE RECYCLING: Faces Miller Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZACHARY MILLER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAKESHORE RECYCLING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02635 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and liquidated damages pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately 2019 until July of 2023 as a non-exempt driver responsible for the collection, transportation, and disposal of residential and commercial waste on behalf of Defendant's customers. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to pay him and similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. Lakeshore Recycling Systems, LLC is a full-service solid waste company located in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, Ill 60606 Telephone: (312)233-1550 Facsimile: (312)233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Potential Securities Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tad Dickens, writing for Cardinal News, reports that a lawsuit filed in a California federal court alleges that Roanoke-based Luna Innovations Inc., its former chief executive and others violated federal securities laws with false and misleading statements to investors about company transactions. Meanwhile, multiple law firms have announced that they are looking for clients to join the proposed class action that plaintiff Eyad Karzoun brought through his Los Angeles-based attorney. The case adds to the multiple issues that Luna is facing after it announced on March 12 that it was indefinitely delaying its fourth quarter and annual reports, having discovered transaction discrepancies that render its second- and third-quarter reports unreliable. The company's president and CEO, Scott Graeff, retired 12 days later. Luna, a fiber-optic sensing and monitoring company trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market, announced this week that Nasdaq had informed the company that it is out of compliance with its reporting rules and that it could be delisted later this year. Graeff was a 21-year Luna employee who spent the last seven as president and CEO. The suit also identifies two chief financial officers -- former CFO Eugene J. Nestro and current CFO George Gomez-Quintero -- as defendants. A woman answering the phone at the Rosen Law Firm, which is representing Karzoun, said the firm would not comment. A message sent to a personal email of Graeff's was not returned. A Luna Innovations spokeswoman said the company cannot comment on legal matters, nor could it comment on the Nasdaq letter. In a case filed April 1 in the Central District of California, Karzoun alleges that he acquired publicly traded Luna securities between Aug. 11, 2023, and March 25, 2024. According to the lawsuit: The company on Aug. 10, 2023, filed its second quarter report, and on Nov. 14, 2023, filed its third quarter report. Both Graeff and Nestro signed federally required certifications vouching for their accuracy, along with disclosures about changes to Luna's internal control over financial reporting, and fraud disclosure. In both reports, the CEO and CFO "concluded that . . . our disclosure controls and procedures were effective," according to the suit. Both statements, however, were "materially false and misleading at the time [they were] made because the Company lacked effective internal controls, as a result of improper revenue recognition," the suit alleges. In a March 12 filing with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, Luna reported that an audit committee from its board of directors found that those statements were unreliable, and that it had found "material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting." In a separate filing, it informed the SEC of its fourth quarter and annual report delays. Karzoun's suit alleges that Graeff, Nestro and Gomez-Quintero were: -- directly or indirectly involved in oversight or implementation of Luna's internal controls; -- aware of or "recklessly disregarded" the false and misleading statements issued about the company, and/or -- approved or ratified those statements, violating federal securities laws. The company itself was responsible for the three officers' actions, the lawsuit states. The defendants "had actual knowledge of the material omissions and/or the falsity of the material statements set forth above, and intended to deceive . . . or, in the alternative, acted with reckless disregard for the truth when they failed to ascertain and disclose the true facts in the statements made by them or any other of [Luna's] personnel to members of the investing public," the suit states. The result was "artificially inflated" Luna share prices, the suit alleges. The stock was trading at $7.73 a share on Aug. 11, and between $6 and $8 this year. It was at $6.44 a share on March 11 and dropped to $4.02 the next day, with a steady downward trend since. It traded at $2.81 a share at close of business. Karzoun's suit asks for damages to be determined later. The plaintiff, through his lawyer, said he "believes that there are hundreds, if not thousands" of potential class members. Luna on March 25 selected Richard Roedel, its board chairman since 2010, as interim executive chairman and interim president. [GN] L’OREAL USA: Faces O’Dea Suit Over Benzene in Acne Products --------------------------------------------------------------- LUCINDA O'DEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L'OREAL, USA, Case No.1:24-cv-02762 (N.D. Ill., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendant of deceptive advertising over its failure to disclose the presence of benzene in its acne products. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of consumer fraud, arising from Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, and sale of acne treatment products that contain benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. According to Plaintiff, Defendant concealed the presence of benzene in its acne treatment products by not including the chemical on the products' ingredients list or packaging. The Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendant's representations and went on to purchase the products in the belief that they were safe, unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens. Headquartered in New York, NY, L'Oreal USA is the largest subsidiary of the L’Oreal Groupe, the world's largest cosmetics company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861 E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com M&D CAPITAL: Dixon Files Suit in E.D.N.Y Over Contract Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M&D Capital Premier Billing, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Ashley Dixon, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. M&D Capital Premier Billing, LLC and Island Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02317 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case arises from the Defendants' alleged contract violation. M&D Capital Premier Billing, LLC is a medical billing company based in Richmond Hill, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MOREHEAD STATE: New Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ JOHN NEW, et al. has filed an appeal on March 26, 2024, in the Kentucky Supreme Court. The appellate case is captioned John New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. Morehead State University, Case No. 2024-SC-0124. The case type is stated as transfer request-party.[BN] Plaintiffs-Movants JOHN NEW, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andre Fereole Regard, Esq. Ivey Lorraine Workman, Esq. REGARD LAW GROUP PLLC Lexington, KY 40511 Defendant-Respondent MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by: Joshua Michael Salsburey, Esq. Kevin Gudgel Henry, Esq. STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC Lexington, KY 40507 NEW GREEN NUTRITION: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Green Nutrition, Inc. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. New Green Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02304 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New Green Nutrition, Inc. is a New York-based food, nutrition & herbal supplements company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com NEW INDY: Court Hearing Over Plant Emissions Class Action Begins ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Ullman of QCNews reports that two days of hearings regarding the New Indy lawsuit over smelly, and some argue dangerous, emissions coming from a nearby paper plant are set to take place on April 11 and 12, 2024 in Columbia. Medical experts have stated that environmental contamination and health issues have been connected to the emissions coming from the New Indy Paper Mill in Catawba County. Those behind the lawsuit state that approximately one million residents in the Carolinas have been and continue to be exposed to the potential illness-causing contamination by breathing and general exposure to contaminated water. A previous EPA Clean Air Act Emergency Order against the New Indy containerboard plant outlined evidence that the mill's operations 'are emitting hydrogen sulfide into the air.' It also states that if owners were allowed to continue the same operations, they would present "an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the environment." Attorneys for the class action lawsuits against the New Indy claim that's not enough from the EPA to keep them safe. They claim that despite the issued Clean Air Act emergency order -- and New Indy's acceptance of the order -- plant operators have continually violated the agreement. [GN] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Ohio Derailment Class Action for $600MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) announced Tuesday that it has reached a $600 million agreement in principle to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit relating to the East Palestine derailment. If approved by the court, the agreement will resolve all class action claims within a 20-mile radius from the derailment and, for those residents who choose to participate, personal injury claims within a 10-mile radius from the derailment. This is another promise kept by Norfolk Southern to make it right for the people of East Palestine and the surrounding communities. In March 2023, the company made commitments to address three long-term concerns of residents: drinking water, home values, and healthcare. Already, the company has announced programs for drinking water and home value assurance. The company is going further through this comprehensive settlement -- providing additional, significant monetary relief to individuals, including for healthcare, and to help qualifying local businesses continue to rebuild and grow. The agreement is designed to provide finality and flexibility for settlement class members. Individuals and businesses will be able to use compensation from the settlement in any manner they see fit to address potential adverse impacts from the derailment. This could include healthcare needs and medical monitoring, property restoration and diminution, and compensation for any net business loss. In addition, individuals within 10-miles of the derailment may, at their discretion, choose to receive additional compensation for any past, current, or future personal injury from the derailment. This settlement furthers the work Norfolk Southern has done to make it right in East Palestine and the surrounding communities. In addition to this settlement, Norfolk Southern has made contributions including: -- $104 million in community assistance to East Palestine and the surrounding areas in Ohio and Pennsylvania, including $25 million for a regional safety training center, $25 million in planned improvements to East Palestine's city park, $21 million in direct payments to residents, and $9 million to local first responders; -- $4.3 million to support upgrades to drinking water infrastructure; -- $2 million for community-directed projects; -- $500,000 grant for economic development; and -- Ongoing support to the community through the Family Assistance Center and programs such as the Interim Value Assurance Program. To learn more about Norfolk Southern's commitment and ongoing remediation efforts, visit NSMakingItRight.com. This agreement does not include or constitute any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or fault. It was reached through extensive negotiations with court-appointed class counsel and with the expert assistance of former federal district judge Layn Phillips, a nationally renowned neutral mediator. It is expected to be submitted for preliminary approval to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio later in April 2024. Subject to final court approval, payments to class members under the settlement could begin by the end of this year. The actual allocations and payments to households, businesses, and individuals will be determined by court-appointed class counsel. Class members will soon receive additional details about the settlement, including the contact information for a Settlement Administrator to whom they can direct any questions and information regarding a Claims Assistance Center in East Palestine. About Norfolk Southern Since 1827, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) and its predecessor companies have safely moved the goods and materials that drive the U.S. economy. Today, it operates a customer-centric and operations-driven freight transportation network. Committed to furthering sustainability, Norfolk Southern helps its customers avoid approximately 15 million tons of yearly carbon emissions by shipping via rail. Its dedicated team members deliver more than 7 million carloads annually, from agriculture to consumer goods, and Norfolk Southern originates more automotive traffic than any other Class I Railroad. Norfolk Southern also has the most extensive intermodal network in the eastern U.S. It serves a majority of the country's population and manufacturing base, with connections to every major container port on the Atlantic coast as well as major ports in the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes. Learn more by visiting www.NorfolkSouthern.com. [GN] OCUGEN INC: Class Suit Alleges Inadequate Proper Internal Controls ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN) securities between May 8, 2020 and April 1, 2024. Ocugen, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops gene therapies to cure blindness diseases. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that Ocugen, Inc. (OCGN) Lacked Proper Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that Ocugen's financial statements from May 8, 2020 to the present were materially misstated and Ocugen did not have adequate internal controls. Plaintiff alleges that on April 1, 2024, Ocugen announced that "the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Audit Committee"), based on the recommendation of management and after consultation with EY, concluded that the Company's previously-issued audited consolidated financial statements for each fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020 and its previously-issued unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements for each of the first three quarters in such years, as well as the associated earnings releases and investor presentations or other communications describing such financial statements, were materially misstated and, accordingly, should no longer be relied upon. The Company intends to restate its consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022, in connection with the filing of its 2023 Form 10-K. Similarly, the Company will include restated unaudited financial information for each of the first three quarters of 2023 and 2022 in its 2023 Form 10-K (each such annual and quarterly period to be restated, a "Restated Period")." On this news, Ocugen's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or over 10%, to close at $1.38 per share on April 2, 2024, damaging investors. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Ocugen, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by June 10, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Ocugen, Inc. Luna Innovations Incorporated settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Predatory Lending -------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00054 (E.D. Va., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Military Lending Act. The Plaintiff, an active-duty service member and a covered borrower, brings this Class action over Defendant's alleged illegal installment loans made to thousands of soldiers in the United States. According to him, Defendant's business practices violate the MLA which was enacted to protect active-duty service members and their dependents from predatory lending. As a covered borrower, he is subject to the protections and limitations of the MLA. He further claims that Defendant's loans to covered borrowers are unlawful and void from inception due to MLA violations. Headquartered in Baltimore, MD, OneMain Financial Group LLC is a personal loan lender exclusively owned by OneMain Financial Holdings Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. John Justin Maravalli, Esq. Adam Short, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com john@clalegal.com adam@clalegal.com - and - Brian Warwick, Esq. Janet Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com PFIZER CORP: Rothschild Sues Over Mislabeled Gabapentin Drug ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayer Amschel Rothschild and to all others similarly situated v. Pfizer Corporation, Ealon Joelson, and Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-CV-00301-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) alleges that Pfizer's Gabapentin was defective in design, manufacturing, or labeling. Plaintiff Rothschild alleges that Pfizer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential risks and side effects associated with Gabapentin, an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset seizures. The Plaintiff asserts that Neurologist Ealon Joelson breached the standard of care in prescribing and monitoring during the Gabapentin treatment to make sure the safe levels are maintained and as not to cause harm. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demands $400,000,000.00 for damages and any and all subsequent treatments. Pfizer Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and produces vaccines and medicines including Gabapentin. [BN] The Plaintiff, of Fort Myers FL, appears pro se. PPG INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Assembly Workers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MORENO, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORPORATION, a California corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08289 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendants of multiple violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt assembly worker from 2018 until his suspension in September 2023. He alleges that Defendants have had a consistent policy and/or practice of failing to include earnings in the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime, sick pay, and premium wages, failing to pay sick leave wages, failing to pay all wages owed twice per month, failing to pay wages due upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. He seeks civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act and the California Labor Code. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, PPG Industries, Inc. is a global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq,Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com PROGRESSIVE PIPELINE: Faces Lewis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONGAMELI LEWIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE PIPELINE MANAGEMENT, LLC and KYLE PATTS, Case No. 1:24-cv-02567 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Corporate Defendant, Progressive Pipeline Management, LLC, as an environmental clean-up worker from approximately April 5, 2022 until on or about March 15, 2023. Corporate Defendant has a contract with the MTA New York City Transit of which Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary. The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendants' alleged failure to pay prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, holiday pay and sick pay, and Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages on a timely basis, and failure to provide notices and accurate wage statements, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. Progressive Pipeline Management, LLC is a construction company based in Wenonah, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William K. Oates, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 430 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-7431 Facsimile: (212) 901-2107 E-mail: woates@tpglaws.com PUROVITE INC: Pineyrua Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Pineyrua, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Purovite Inc., and Tariff Gaffar, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21261 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately March 16, 2022, to March 01, 2024, or 102 weeks. During the relevant period of employment, the Plaintiff had duties as a production employee, warehouse worker, and technician cleaning and fixing vitamin machines. Allegedly, the Defendants deducted from Plaintiff's working hours as lunchtime, although Plaintiff could not take bonafide lunchtime periods. In addition, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly but was not paid for all his overtime hours, as required by law, the suit alleges. With facilities located in Miami, FL, Purovite is a nutraceutical contract manufacturer/laboratory specializing in nutraceutical products for human and animal consumption. Purovite develops its products for domestic and international markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com QUEBEC MAJOR: Superior Court Authorizes Hazing Class-Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quebec Superior Court has authorized a class-action lawsuit against the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League and its teams over alleged hazing abuse. Justice Jacques G. Bouchard gave the class action the green light in a decision published Wednesday, after hearing arguments last month in Quebec City. The case can now be heard on its merits, something that could still be years away. The lawsuit of more than $15 million was filed last year by Carl Latulippe, a former Quebec minor hockey star who went public with alleged abuse suffered while playing for two teams in the mid-1990s. It targets the league, its member franchises and its umbrella organization -- the Canadian Hockey League -- and seeks $650,000 for the plaintiff in damages, including pain, suffering and humiliation, as well as lost productivity and therapy costs. Another $15 million would be shared among other alleged victims. Latulippe played for three teams in the Quebec-based major junior league between 1994 and 1996 and is represented by Montreal law firm Kugler Kandestin. One of his lawyers, David Stolow, said in an interview that Latulippe was very happy when informed about Wednesday's ruling. "It was very, very important and I think quite emotional both for him and for me as well, it was very welcome news to receive," Stolow said. Those covered in the class action are "all hockey players who have experienced abuse while they were minors and playing in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League" since July 1, 1969. Bouchard noted in his judgment the process for authorizing a class action doesn't involve delving into the merits, but rather to filter applications that are frivolous. "The court recognizes that the request for authorization is formulated in a broad and ambitious manner," Bouchard wrote about what could be a significant class size. "But it is only by examining the merits of all the allegations of fact that it will be possible to detect or not the existence of such joint liability with regard to all or only certain teams." Latulippe, now 46, first made public the alleged abuse he faced in an interview with Montreal La Presse last year. A first-round of the Chicoutimi Sagueneens in the 1994 QMJHL draft, Latulippe alleged that during training camp he was forced by veteran players to undress and masturbate in front of teammates on a team bus, with full knowledge of the coaches. He also alleges that team veterans assaulted rookies with soap wrapped in towels. Latulippe left the team briefly after the bus incident and later returned at the behest of the coach, but when he discussed the abuse he was allegedly told by the coach that the hazing would only last a year and help build character. He played six regular-season games with the Sagueneens before joining the Drummondville Voltigeurs, where he alleges he faced more abuse. He said Voltigeurs rookies covered themselves in shampoo to make it difficult for veterans to grab and assault them in the shower. In the documents, Latulippe also describes being forced to binge drink at a team initiation event in Drummondville, Que. After the Voltigeurs, the plaintiff played for the Beauport Harfangs -- who have since become the Quebec City Remparts. He said no hazing incidents occurred while he was on that team. Latulippe's lawsuit argued that the defendants, "when they had an obligation to protect the members of the class and to look after their well-being, witnessed the abuse, encouraged it, neglected, tolerated, covered up or ignored it." The league had argued against having all teams named as defendants, but Bouchard ruled it was too early to rule out any clubs. "The statements of fault by omission or negligence aimed at all of the defendants, if confirmed by probative evidence, could possibly lead to the conclusions sought," Bouchard wrote. "It would therefore be premature to address these delicate questions now and especially taking into account the very undemanding threshold required (for authorization)." The league's lawyers had argued that a class action was not the proper way to proceed and also raised a case filed in Ontario, where a Superior Court judge in February 2023 denied authorization for a class action in that province involving players in Canada's three major junior hockey leagues -- including the QMJHL -- dating back to 1975. The Ontario judge who heard the application accepted the evidence that players suffered "horrific and despicable and unquestionably criminal acts" at the hands of teammates and staff during initiations and hazing rituals, but that plaintiffs failed to present a workable plan to litigate. The players have appealed and the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear that case on June 11. Stolow said the Quebec filing will exclude anyone who participates in any individual lawsuits in Ontario, and class members in Quebec will have certain period of time to opt out of the Quebec case. Bouchard also ruled that other victims could use pseudonyms during the case. Stolow said others have come forward without revealing names or numbers. He said it's typical for people to come forward at different stages. "For us it's really important to convey the message that if someone wants to reach out and picks up the phone and calls me, there is a guarantee of confidentiality," Stolow said. The league and other defendants will have 30 days from the notice of judgment to seek permission to appeal the ruling. [GN] R1 RCM: Faces Hillbom Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER HILLBOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R1 RCM, INC.; and DIGNITY HEALTH d/b/a DIGNITY HEALTH - ST. ROSE DOMINICAN HOSPITAL, ROSE DE LIMA CAMPUS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00664 (D. Nev., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifying information and personal health information. Between January 30, 2023 and November 17, 2023, Defendant R1, a third-party vendor of technology-based revenue cycle management services for hospitals, including co-defendant Dignity Health, and other entities in the healthcare industry, experienced a data breach during which Plaintiff and Class members' PII and PHI were compromised. The Plaintiff claims that the data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' PII and PHI against illegal access and exfiltration by unauthorized third parties. This action seeks to remedy Defendants' failings and their consequences, with Plaintiff asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Murray, UT, R1 RCM, Inc. is an American revenue cycle management company servicing the healthcare industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6787 W. Tropicana Avenue, Suite 250 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mona@kazlg.com RANDOLPH COLLEGE: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Randolph College, Incorporated. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Randolph College, Incorporated, Case No. 1:24-cv-02378 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Randolph College, Incorporated was founded in 1891. It is a private liberal arts and sciences college located in Lynchburg, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com RB HEALTH: O'Dea Sues Over Benzene Presence in Acne Products ------------------------------------------------------------ LUCINDA O'DEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Case No.1:24-cv-02757 (N.D. Ill., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendant of consumer fraud over its failure to disclose the presence of benzene in its acne treatment products. The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sale of acne treatment products that contain the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide ("BPO"). BPO degrades over time into benzene, a known carcinogen that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. The Defendant allegedly misrepresents that the products do not contain benzene as the harmful chemical is not included on the products' ingredients list. The presence of benzene in the products renders them adulterated and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both federal and state law, says the suit. The Plaintiff claims that she and others who purchased the products were harmed as a result of Defendant's failure to disclose that the products contain benzene. The Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief for Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts. RB Health US LLC is a manufacturer of drugs and pharmaceuticals based in Parsippany, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861 E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com RCI DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Matlock Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY MATLOCK, and DETYSCHA PICKNEY, Plaintiff v. RCI DINING SERVICES (SULPHUR), INC. D/B/A SCARLETT’S CABARET, CORDERO PENNINGTON, and TRAVIS R. REESE, individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00456 (W.D. La., April 4, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages from Defendants' conduct of evading the mandatory minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and illegally absconding with Plaintiffs' tips. Plaintiffs Matlock Pickney were employed by the Defendants from approximately 2018 through December 18, 2023 and from approximately October 2022 through May 2023, respectively. Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs assert that hey had been denied minimum wage payments as part of Defendants' scheme to classify them and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." Based in West Sulphur, LA, RCI Dining Services owns and operates a strip club named Scarlett's. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Hanchey, Esq. THE TOWNSLEY LAW FIRM 3102 Enterprise Boulevard Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 478-1400 Facsimile: (337) 478-1577 E-mail: david@townsleylawfirm.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com leigh@ellzeylaw.com RESTAURANTE UNIVERSAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guerra Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ INGRID P. GUERRA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANTE UNIVERSAL MARIA’S, CORP., MARIA C. MARADIAGA, and EDGARD M. VASQUEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21271-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Guerra as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly-paid waitress/cafeteria attendant. While employed by Defendants, the Plaintiff worked a regular schedule of five days per week, 48 hours every week. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours weekly, but she was not paid for overtime hours as required by law, the suit says. Restaurante Universal is a Latin café/restaurant located at 1417 Opa-Locka Blvd, Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com RIVERDALE SNF: Gordons Sue Over Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------- PERNELL GORDON and LATOYA GORDON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RIVERDALE SNF, LLC D/B/A SCHERVIER REHABILITATION AND NURSING CARE CENTER, TL MANAGEMENT, LLC, TL MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, TL HEALTHCARE LEASING, LLC, and TL HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02612 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other hourly employees with various job titles who work or have worked at Schervier nursing care center in New York which is operated by Defendant Riverdale SNF, LLC. Defendant Riverdale allegedly committed multiple labor law violations, including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay timely wages. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties under the FLSA and the NYLL. Riverdale SNF, LLC is a for-profit nursing facility located in Bronx, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mb@outtengolden.com - and - Molly J. Frandsen, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: mfrandsen@outtengolden.com ROBERT FOX: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Fox, Inc. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Robert Fox, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02311 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Robert Fox, Inc. retails women's clothing. The Company offers apparel, coats, bags, shoes, jewelry, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com S.J.B. CORP: Faces McDonald Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ala. ----------------------------------------------------------- KELLEY MCDONALD and TAYLOR SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S.J.B. CORPORATION dba SAMMY'S, an Alabama Corporation; PATRICIA CANTAVESPRE, an individual; SAMMY RUSSO, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00436-SGC (N.D. Ala., April 7, 2024), seeks damages for Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages and unlawful taking of tips and/or kickback. The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at Defendants' club Sammy's located at 342 Valley Avenue, Birmingham, Alabama. Allegedly, throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class members were not paid the mandatory minimum wage and were denied overtime payments as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as independent contractors. Additionally, Defendants allegedly engaged in illegal practices relating to employees' tips. S.J.B. Corporation is engaged in the adult entertainment business and operates Sammy's Gentlemen's Club in Birmingham, AL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Tortorici, Esq. SCHILLECI & TORTORICI, P.C. 100 Centerview Drive, Suite 205 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: (205) 978-4211 E-mail: jpt@schillecitortoricilaw.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara Street, Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com SABINA'S DREAM: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Maids, Hatcher Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Tamara R. Hatcher, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Sabina's Dream, LLC, d/b/a Royal Maid Service Rockledge, and Sabina Huseynova, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00655 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Hatcher from approximately January 1, 2024, through March 13, 2024, or 10 weeks. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt, full-time maid who cleaned and maintained clients' private homes. During her employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff worked 70 hours weekly. However, Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law, says the suit. Based in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida, Royal Maid Service is a residential and commercial cleaning company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SANDOZ CANADA: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Class Action Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- On March 27, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited et al, 2024 ONCA 220, dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal from a denial of certification in a proposed pharmaceutical product liability class action against Sandoz Canada Inc. ("Sandoz"), seeking C$250M in damages. The plaintiffs' proposed class action involved allegations regarding the presence of certain alleged carcinogens in a high blood pressure medication. In the motion underlying this appeal, Sandoz achieved complete success, with the motion judge concluding that the plaintiffs had failed every element of the test for certification of a class action. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and again Sandoz achieved complete success. The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs' arguments with respect to the many forms of causes of action pleaded. Importantly, the Court of Appeal agreed with Sandoz's position that the plaintiffs' claims were ill-fated as a result of the failure to plead any compensable loss, and to present any evidence of any actual harm to the proposed class. Fasken represented the defendant Sandoz Canada Inc. in securing the result, with a team led by Peter Pliszka and including Zohaib Maladwala and Robin Roddey. [GN] SCOTTS CO: Perez Sues Over Insecticide Product's False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA PEREZ, and MICHAEL GREGORIO v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC, and WALMART INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60516-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendants of fraudulent business practices in relation to the advertising, marketing, labeling and sale of an insecticide product. According to the complaint, Defendant Scott Company engaged in unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, misleading and/or deceptive advertising to encourage consumers, including Plaintiffs, to purchase its Orthene Fire Ant Killer1 product. In particular, the company made false representations on the product's label, leading consumers to believe that the product "treats up to 162 mounds" and "kills the queen". Expert testing unveils that such claims are not true. Plaintiffs Perez and Gregorio purchased the product separately on February 2, 2023 and February 3, 2024 in Florida. They allege that Defendant Walmart tolerated and had actual knowledge of Scotts’ illegal practice as it continued to market and distribute the product at issue despite receiving notice from Plaintiffs about the alleged fraudulent representations. The Plaintiffs seek damages for Defendants' alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Located in Marysville OH, The Scotts Company, LLC is one of the largest manufacturers of lawn care products worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia S. Zbrzeznj, Esq. Nicholas T. Zbrzeznj, Esq. SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC 290 1st Street S Winter Haven, FL 33880 Telephone: (863)656-6672 Facsimile: (863)301-4500 E-mail: lydia@southernatlanticlaw.com nick@southernatlanticlaw.com kara@southernatlanticlaw.com mark@southernatlanticlaw.com SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Giana Digital Copyright Infringement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN GIANA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORP.; ROADGET BUSINESS PTE., LTD. d/b/a SHEIN; SHEIN TECHNOLOGY LLC; and SHEIN US SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02599 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024) seeks damages and injunctive relief over Defendants' alleged industrial-scale scheme of systematic, digital copyright infringement of the work of small artists and designers. The Plaintiff, an artist and designer, who for more than 30 years, has earned a living by creating and licensing artwork, alleges that Defendant Shein has systematically infringed and continue to infringe copyrights owned by Plaintiff and other designers and artists across the United States. According to Plaintiff, Defendant is using a sophisticated, for-profit surveillance and copying system that enables it to copy and infringe the designs of others, even after the actual designers have notified the company that it is selling stolen works. The Defendant allegedly has a history of generating exact copies of other designers' works, including copyrighted material owned by Plaintiff and Class members. Shein Distribution Corporation operates an e-commerce business and is based in Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Mullen, Esq. Vincent R. FitzPatrick III, Esq. MULLEN P.C 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 632-3718 E-mail: wmullen@mullenpc.com vfitzpatrick@mullenpc.com - and - Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com SHEIN FASHION: Faces Digital Copyright Infringement Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laurel Deppen, writing for Retail Dive, reports that a class action lawsuit alleges that Shein has copyright infringement 'baked into' its business model. Dive Brief: -- Shein is facing a class action lawsuit that alleges the fast-fashion company uses an "industrial-scale scheme of systematic, digital copyright infringement" against small designers and artists, according to court documents last week. -- Attorneys for the group of plaintiffs say that Shein "uses sophisticated electronic systems that algorithmically scour the internet for popular works created by artists" and "misappropriates those works to manufacture and sell" them as Shein products without attribution to the creators. -- The complaint is the latest in a series of copyright infringement lawsuits filed against the fast-fashion giant, including an ongoing one from last year that claimed violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Dive Insight: The latest case, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, points to Shein's ultra fast business model that involves rapid mass production and generating thousands of new products each day. Attorneys allege that to distribute these items "at such a fever pitch," Shein's algorithm-based design system outputs designs to Shein's factories for production "with no human intermediary or compliance function taking care that the algorithm's designs are not the property of others." "But Shein does not create many of its products; it certainly does not design thousands daily," the complaint reads. " . . . Shein uses algorithms, artificial intelligence, and related computerized monitoring systems to identify trending and 'viral' images and designs on social media, apps, and websites." The complaint further claimed that the fast-fashion company combines its data-mining system with research and surveillance of its competitors, and attorneys say that "widespread copyright infringement is baked into the [Shein] business." A Shein spokesperson declined to comment. In Fashion Dive's previous reporting, the company has said it takes all claims of infringement seriously. Though the bulk of the copyright infringement complaints against Shein have, like this one, been filed by independent designers, larger fashion brands and retailers have sued Shein as well, including Victoria's Secret-backed For Love and Lemons, Uniqlo and H&M. Beyond the courts, Shein's business model has also been questioned by Congress. Last year, a group of lawmakers wrote a letter to the top executive of Shein, asking the company to detail its compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a 2021 law that bans products from Xinjiang region in China. Another group of congress members similarly asked the SEC to halt a potential Shein IPO until it confirmed it didn't use forced labor in its supply chain. Temu, one of Shein's competitors, was also part of the congressional investigation. Temu sued Shein in December 2023, accusing it of anticompetitive behavior. Temu is facing two ongoing class action lawsuits which accuse it of intentionally loading dangerous malware and spyware onto users' devices and failing to comply with security standards, among other claims. [GN] SMBC NIKKO: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willkie successfully secured the dismissal on appeal of claims against SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. in a securities class action arising out of ViacomCBS's $3 billion secondary public offering in March 2021. SMBC Nikko served as one of multiple underwriters in a syndicate for the offering. A panel of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, reversed the trial court's denial of SMBC Nikko's motion to dismiss, holding that SMBC Nikko could not be held liable for failure to disclose information that it did not know regarding the alleged trading activities of other banks in the syndicate. This is a rare instance where some but not all of the underwriter banks in a syndicate are dismissed from a securities class action at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiffs filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division, alleging that, prior to the offering, certain underwriter banks -- not SMBC Nikko -- held total-return swap positions referencing ViacomCBS stock with the now defunct family hedge fund Archegos Capital Management. Plaintiffs allege that those underwriter banks sold large blocks of ViacomCBS stock that they had purchased to hedge the swap positions. The block sales purportedly caused the price of ViacomCBS stock to fall shortly after the offerings, prompting plaintiffs to file suit under the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs allege that the offering documents were false and misleading because they allegedly failed to warn investors about these potential sales. In February 2023, the trial court denied all of the underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the issuer ViacomCBS's motion to dismiss. For SMBC Nikko, Willkie argued that the allegedly omitted information was not "known or knowable" to SMBC Nikko at the time of the offering, because plaintiffs did not allege that SMBC Nikko could have known about the other banks' potential trading. Nevertheless, the trial court determined that SMBC Nikko and other so-called "non-trading underwriters" had an affirmative obligation under the '33 Act to perform some level of due diligence on all of the other underwriters in the syndicate and ascertain whether any of them had conflicts of interest. SMBC Nikko and the other underwriter defendants appealed the trial court's decision. On April 4, 2024, a panel of the First Department reversed the ruling as to SMBC Nikko, the other non-trading underwriters, and certain other underwriters. The appeals court held that SMBC Nikko could not be held liable for failure to disclose information that it "did not know" and could not know about, including trading activities of the other underwriters. The Willkie litigation team was led by partners Todd Cosenza and Brady Sullivan and included associates Madeleine Tayer and Samuel Hurst-MacDonald. [GN] SOLSTICE MARKETING: Anderson Files Suit Over ADA Breach ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC. The case is captioned as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02359-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC retail eyewear products. The Company offers designer, contemporary, and sport sunglasses and contact lenses for women, men, and children with locations in outlet centers, malls, and online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st ave Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Gore Suit Over Unprotected Sensitive Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- LATONYA GORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHSTATE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00838-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. On or about March 29, 2024, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other data breach victims a notice letter regarding the data breach incident. However, the letter allegedly failed to include the identity of the cybercriminals who perpetrated this data breach, the date Defendant detected the data breach, the details of the root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. Plaintiff Gore brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to her 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. Headquartered in Winter Haven, FL, SouthState Bank operates more than 240 convenient branches and ATMs in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. [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 SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Denies Arbitration in Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Arkansas Court of Appeals has denied arbitration in a class-action lawsuit that Arkansas cities filed against Suddenlink Communications. The lawsuit was filed by the City of Gurdon on behalf of 59 Arkansas cities, including Arkadelphia and Caddo Valley, which have franchise ordinances governing the cable television, telephone and internet services Suddenlink provides to city residents. On April 3, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Clark County Circuit Court's ruling that the cities were not required to individually arbitrate their claims against Suddenlink. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court's ruling that the case could proceed as a class action. The ruling means that Suddenlink, which now does business as Optimum, will not be able to avoid the claims of the Arkansas cities where it provides services through franchise agreements. Gurdon and the other cities allege that Suddenlink failed to make proper payments to them for its franchise rights and that the company failed to meet the minimum customer standards imposed by law and by the respective franchise ordinances. Among other things, Gurdon and Arkadelphia's respective franchise ordinances prohibit the cable television provider from increasing its rates for services unless it first provides public notice of any increase, conducts a public hearing and secures approval from the City Council. Gurdon and other cities allege that Suddenlink consistently failed to comply with those requirements. In 2020, Suddenlink closed most of its offices in Arkansas, but Arkadelphia's ordinance requires the city's franchise cable television provider to maintain a local office. In 2020, hundreds of Suddenlink customers lodged complaints about the company's prices and services and several customers followed through with lawsuits. In 2023, the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a series of decisions which prevented individual customers from seeking legal relief against Suddenlink in court because of an arbitration provision that appeared on a Suddenlink website. Those rulings required customers to individually submit any claims to a private arbitrator. "We are disappointed that Suddenlink was able to use a website arbitration clause to shield itself from lawsuits by individual customers, but we are pleased that Suddenlink was not able to prevent Arkansas cities from pursuing these claims on behalf of themselves and their citizens," said Todd Turner, who was one of the attorneys who represents the cities. "We would encourage anyone who has complaints about Suddenlink or Optimum to continue to contact the Arkansas Attorney General's office and their local city representatives." [GN] TEE JAYE'S: Engages in Illegal Tip Scheme, Knox Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- TANDY J. KNOX, MEGAN DRAKE, MACIE R. JENKINS, and LESLIE R. DECKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TEE JAYE'S COUNTRY PLACE, INC. dba TEE JAYE'S COUNTRY PLACE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01593-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 5, 2024) seeks to recover compensation, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio labor laws. The Plaintiffs are employed as non-exempt servers at Defendant's Whitehall and Zanesville locations. Defendant allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees the tipped minimum wage even when they're performing non-tip producing work, which is in violation of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act. As a result of Defendant's illegal tip scheme, the Plaintiffs and Class members were not compensated appropriately at the constitutionally mandated minimum wage. The Defendant has continued to implement the illegal tip credit scheme despite being previously sued over the unlawful practice, say the Plaintiffs. Based in Ohio, Tee Jaye's Country Place, Inc operates home-style cooking restaurants at multiple locations in Columbus, Ohio and the surrounding area. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com TRUSPER INC: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Consumer Privacy Law Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELIA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUSPER, INC. d/b/a MUSELY, Case No. 5:24-cv-02012 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating California's consumer privacy laws by disclosing to Meta confidential information belonging to users and visitors of Defendant's website. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant assists and conspires with Meta to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and other consumers who accessed and used Defendant's website, www.musely.com. She accessed Defendant's website in or around August 2023 to purchase a treatment for dark brown spots on the skin. As part of the purchase process, she answered a series of questions regarding her skin condition so she could get a medical prescription for the product she purchased. After placing her order via the Musely website, she began receiving targeted advertisements from Musely and other related skincare advertisements on Facebook, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further claims that Defendant assisted Meta with intercepting her communications, including those that contained personally identifiable information, protection health information, and related confidential information, without her knowledge, consent, or express written authorization. The Defendant's conduct is allegedly in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the Plaintiff added. Headquartered in Santa Clara, CA, Trusper Inc., doing business as Musely, offers prescription skincare products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Settles Title IX Class-Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Onstot of Koco New 5 reports that the University of Central Oklahoma has reached a proposed settlement in a Title IX class-action lawsuit. In 2022, athletes on the UCO women's track and cross-country team filed a lawsuit claiming the university violated their Title IX rights by not giving them the same benefits or rights as men's teams. he lawsuit was filed on behalf of athletes on the women's cross country and track teams. Attorneys representing them said in 2022 that they filed this against UCO for "treating its female student-athletes much worse than the male athletes -- and retaliating against them for seeking equal treatment." The suit claimed the women's cross country and track teams have no locker room, no competitive facility and they're forced to practice at a local middle school. Attorney Arthur Bryant, who represents the athletes, said schools usually realize they are in violation of Title IX and make necessary changes, but UCO didn't. "It took two years, but our clients are getting exactly what they wanted from the start. The school has committed to get fully compliant with Title IX throughout its athletic program and give equal treatment and benefits to female student athletes and male student athletes. That's what the law requires," Bryant said. Bryant said UCO has now agreed to right these wrongs in what he called a hug win for all women at the university. The school has agreed to make immediate changes to their women's track and cross country teams, and it will hire a gender equity specialist who will conduct thorough reviews, Bryant said. The agreement also said the school will file Title IX reports for years to come, as well as be responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the athletes' legal fees, according to Bryant. The settlement is not official, and a judge will have to approve it this summer. Until then, every female student at the school has a chance to give their opinion on the settlement. [GN] WALMART INC: Faces Faison Suit Over Mislabeled Bed Sheet Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- VERNITA FAISON, individually and as a representative of all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC. and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01024-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of false advertising over misrepresentations made on their bed sheet product. Defendant Walmart manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells bed sheet sets under its exclusively owned brand name "Hotel Style" at Walmart locations throughout the country. The Hotel Style bed sheets are being advertised as "800 THREAD COUNT," as indicated on their packaging and labeling, regardless of their size, color, or pattern. Walmart's thread count claim on its Hotel Style sheets is a misleading representation, as expert testing has found that the thread count of Walmart's Hotel Style Sheets is less than half of the represented and warranted thread count, says the suit. The thread count serves as a primary indicator for consumers in determining the quality, durability, and longevity of sheet sets and fabrics. Walmart's false and misleading representation deceives consumers into believing they are purchasing a product of a higher quality. The Plaintiff purchased Hotel Style sheets from a Walmart store in Sacramento, CA at a higher price believing that the bed sheets contain an 800 thread count. The Plaintiff brings this suit against Walmart of violating multiple state laws and seeks damages for the alleged violations. Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Walmart is a retailer, operating approximately 10,500 stores and clubs in 24 countries across the globe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Leora N. Friedman, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com lfriedman@tzlegal.com - and - Frank Bartela, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com WEIRTON MEDICAL: Yano Files Suit Over Personal Property Damage -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weirton Medical Center, Inc. The case is captioned as Trish Yano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weirton Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00061-JPB (N.D. W.Va., March 28, 2024). The suit arises from the Defendant's misconduct resulting to Plaintiff's personal property damage. The case is assigned to Judge John Preston Bailey. Weirton Medical Center, Inc. provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 E-mail: jdeters@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Jonathan Zak Ritchie, Esq. Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq. HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC P.O. Box 3983 Charleston, WV 25339 Telephone: (681) 265-3802 Facsimile: (304) 982-8056 E-mail: zritchie@hfdrlaw.com rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com ZF TRW: Court Denies Certification in Product Liability Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Fleming and Ara Basmadjian of Dentons report that in Larsen v. ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., 2023 BCSC 1471 ("Larsen"), the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the plaintiff's application to certify a proposed product liability class action on the grounds the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was "some basis in fact" for the alleged defect at issue and that it was common to the proposed class. The decision in Larsen is significant because it confirms that product liability claims are not always amenable to class actions where there are differences in the features of the alleged defect at issue amongst multiple manufacturer defendants. Larsen also demonstrates that an effective and timely recall campaign can serve to undermine the certification of potential class actions in the automotive industry. In Larsen, the plaintiff claimed that airbag control units ("ACUs") designed and manufactured by certain defendants and installed in vehicles manufactured, distributed, and sold by other defendants were defective. At its core, the plaintiff's claim was for pure economic loss for negligent design and manufacturing. There were no allegations that the proposed class members had suffered any physical injuries as a result of the defective ACUs. Certain defendants issued recalls of some of the vehicle models that included the allegedly defective ACU while other models with the ACU were not recalled by the same manufacturers. Certain defendants did not recall any vehicles that included the ACU that was the subject of the claim. The evidence at the certification application disclosed that there were various design features of the several different vehicle models of the proposed class members that could impact whether the alleged defect would manifest itself. In considering the certification application, the Court noted that although the existence of a recall is some acknowledgment that a defect may exist, in order to be certified as a class action, the plaintiff was required to provide some basis in fact that the ACUs continued to be defective in the vehicles that were recalled and that were repaired. She failed to do so. The evidence before the court established that all individuals affected by the recalls had been made whole through free repair. The court held that "the existing recall campaign was the more fair, efficient and manageable procedure." The court also determined that there were significant differences amongst the various vehicle models in respect of sensor placement, wire routing, and other design features. In other words, there were several different factors that could materially impact the existence of the alleged defect at issue. Accordingly, the court was not in a position to generalize or extrapolate from one class member's vehicle to another. There was no basis in fact for the existence of a defect that was common to the class and the plaintiff's application was dismissed as a result. [GN] [*] German Parliament to Debate Reform of Class Action Law ---------------------------------------------------------- Luigi Serenelli of IPE reports that the German Parliament (Bundestag) will start discussing on April 11, 2024, the reform of the Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz (KapMuG), a law regulating a form of class action to claim damages for false or misleading capital market information. The government has put forward a draft bill to reform the existing law, which will expire on 31 August. With the reform, the cabinet wants to strengthen the role of the higher regional courts in class action proceedings. According to the draft law, the higher regional courts should have the power in the future to formulate legal questions inherent to the proceedings, to ultimately provide answers dealing with claims for damages. This puts the Higher Regional Court in a position to determine the matter of the proceeding relevant for the cases, and in such a way that it is possible to conduct the proceeding efficiently while at the same time bundling proceeding as much as possible, according to the draft. 'Urgent' The KapMuG, which entered into force in 2005 and was last amended in 2020, lays the legal basis to bundle proceedings running in parallel. Moreover, the new rules are intended to shorten the period necessary to bring a case from the regional court to the higher regional court, it added. The government is also aiming also to digitise proceedings, expanding the scope of the law to cover crypto asset trading, it said. The bill to reform the existing rules is urgent to avoid halting cases brought before the higher regional courts, Chancellor Olaf Scholz wrote in the document presenting the law to the present of the Bundesrat, the chamber representing the states. Last year, the highest regional court in Bavaria paved the way for the start of class action proceedings according to KapMuG law against Wirecard, based on the case of the private investor Kurt Ebert. Law firm TILP represents 182 institutional investors in the proceeding against EY for its role in examining Wirecard's balance sheets, mainly from Europe, the US and Asia, it said. TILP has criticised the government's draft bill, saying that it suffers from numerous shortcomings, which are likely to lead to significant problems in practice. The draft law must be reviewed and improved before is passed, the law firm said in a statement. [GN] [*] Illinois Employers Faces Surge of GIPA Class Action Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saul Ewing LLP, writing for JDSupra, reports that over the last decade, Illinois employers have been faced with a rash of class action lawsuits under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), causing many employers to pay hefty sums and alter their biometric timekeeping procedures. Now, a different statute may be gaining steam as the new lawsuit "du jour." Illinois' Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) governs the collection and use of genetic information. 410 ILCS 513/1, et. seq. Despite having been in effect for over two decades, in the last year, there has been an uptick in class action lawsuits filed against employers for GIPA violations. This upward trend is likely the result of recent success by class action plaintiffs under BIPA, which has yielded multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements against employers who unknowingly run afoul of its provisions. GIPA may be heading in the same direction. Enacted in 1998, GIPA prohibits companies from using genetic testing and information to make employment decisions. Specifically, it states that an employer may not directly or indirectly do any of the following: -- Request genetic testing or information from a person or their family members as a condition of employment; -- Affect the terms, conditions, or status of employment based on an individual or their family members' genetic testing or information; -- Adversely affect an individual's employment status due to the individual or their family members' genetic testing or information; and -- Retaliate against an individual alleging a violation of the Act. The Act also provides that employers may not share any genetic information collected without first obtaining the individual's written consent. Protected genetic information includes the following: -- An individual's genetic tests; -- The genetic tests of the individual's family members (which include first-, second-, third-, and fourth-degree relatives); -- The manifestation of a disease or disorder in the individual's family members; -- Any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or participation in clinical research that includes genetic services, by the individual or any family members; and -- Information concerning a fetus carried by, or an embryo legally held by, the individual or any family member. Genetic information does not include information about an individual's sex or age. In a typical GIPA case, plaintiffs allege that their employer or prospective employer violated the law by requiring them to undergo a pre-employment physical, during which the health professional conducting the physical asked questions about the plaintiff's family medical history. Thus, because the job was contingent on the physical, the employer indirectly required the disclosure of protected genetic information. For example, in Berry et al. v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 2023-CH-07795 (Cook Ctny, Aug. 28, 2023), the plaintiffs alleged they were required to submit to a pre-employment physical, during which an outside medical provider asked them to provide their family medical history. Notably, the complaint did not allege that the employer instructed the medical provider to collect any genetic information or was even aware that the information was collected. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs claimed the employer violated GIPA because the plaintiffs' hiring was conditioned upon successful competition of the physical, in which they were asked to provide genetic information to the healthcare provider. Similar to BIPA, GIPA authorizes statutory penalties for each violation and includes a fee-shifting provision, making GIPA lawsuits a lucrative pursuit for plaintiffs' attorneys. Notably, the penalties are even higher than those set forth in BIPA. If successful, GIPA plaintiffs may recover $2,500 for each negligent violation and $15,000 for each reckless or intentional violation, in addition to their reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Illinois employers will likely continue to see a surge in GIPA class actions due to the significant statutory damages available to successful plaintiffs and the recent success of BIPA claims. In light of the growing number of lawsuits filed under GIPA, if your business requires pre-employment physicals or otherwise collects, uses, or handles genetic information, it is critical to ensure compliance with the law. [GN] [*] New ERISA Class Actions Aim on Health Plan Fiduciary Obligation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fisher Phillips reports that ERISA class action lawsuits against retirement plan fiduciaries have become commonplace over the last few decades, usually alleging that imprudent processes and lack of oversight led to excessive fees for investment options, recordkeeping services, and investment management services. Now, thanks to new disclosure requirements and transparency laws, health plan fiduciaries are starting to face similar class actions. What can employers do to shield themselves from such claims? Here's an overview of what you need to know, key takeaways from a recently filed lawsuit, and 10 best practices for group health plan fiduciaries. A New Wave of ERISA Excessive Fee Litigation Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), plan fiduciaries have a legal obligation to act prudently and solely in the best interests of plan participants. This includes paying reasonable and necessary fees for services provided to the plan. This duty applies to both retirement and health plan fiduciaries. Historically, excessive fee lawsuits involved participants alleging that the retirement plan's fiduciaries breached their ERISA duties by failing to pay reasonable management and investment fees. As a result, these unreasonably high fees negatively impact the plan's performance and the participants' accounts. ERISA excessive fee litigation has become more common in recent years as participants have become more aware of the fees charged to their retirement plans. Between 2016 and 2023, plaintiffs' lawyers filed just over 460 excessive fee lawsuits, with approximately 200 still pending. In 2023 alone, there were just over 40 excess fee lawsuit settlements, with settlements ranging from $200,000 to $124.6 million. Settlements have continued to increase year over year. Now, plaintiffs' attorneys are turning their eyes to group health plan fiduciaries in light of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA-21), which has ushered in a new wave of ERISA excessive fee litigation. New Health Plan Fee Disclosure and Pricing Transparency Laws The CAA-21 and the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) Rule comprise the most comprehensive health plan legislation and reforms since the Affordable Care Act. They place new obligations on group health plans and health insurance companies for plan fee disclosures and pricing transparency. Notably, these laws may contribute to new class action lawsuits against health plan fiduciaries. Mandatory Fee Disclosures CAA-21 was signed into law in December 2020, becoming effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2021. This law requires service providers to give fee disclosures to group health plan fiduciaries, pursuant to ERISA (similar to those required for retirement plans that have been in effect since 2012). Under ERISA Section 408(b)(2), any contract related to a group health plan is not reasonable (meaning it's a prohibited transaction) unless the direct and/or indirect compensation received by a health plan service provider (which equals $1,000 or more) is disclosed in writing to the plan fiduciary ahead of entering into the contract or extending the contract. For this purpose, covered "service providers" are brokers and consultants. These required disclosures are designed to provide group health plan fiduciaries with sufficient information to help determine whether the fees are reasonable, as required by ERISA's fiduciary rules. Additionally, this law has enhanced cost awareness among health plan participants. You should note that plaintiffs' attorneys are likely seeking information in these disclosures -- or claiming these disclosures were not provided or received – to support participant claims against ERISA health plan fiduciaries and their service providers. New Transparency Rules The federal government also issued the TiC final rule in 2020, with rolling effective dates from 2022 through 2024. This rule requires group health plans to disclosure machine-readable data describing payment rates for in-network healthcare items and services, out-of-network allowable amounts, and prescription drug costs. These data files are intended to make healthcare pricing information accessible to participants, helping them know the cost of a covered item or service before receiving care. The CAA-21 expanded upon this TiC rule by requiring group health plans to provide more expansive prescription drug and medical cost reporting. With many large, self-insured plans, these costs lie with third-party providers, like pharmacy benefit managers. Like the fee disclosures, this TiC data is also helpful in determining whether plan fees are reasonable under ERISA's fiduciary rules, potentially supporting excessive claims litigation. Lawsuit Serves as Reminder to Employers A recently filed lawsuit targets group health plan fiduciary obligations under ERISA and focuses on the "duty of prudence" when selecting and monitoring health plan vendors. The lawsuit alleges that the plan participants and beneficiaries were harmed by paying increased plan costs because of these fiduciary breaches. Although this case is pending, it's a reminder to employers sponsoring group health plans – especially self-insured health plans – to review their ERISA fiduciary obligations while maintaining robust processes and procedures. In the February 5 complaint, participants alleged that group health plan fiduciaries at Johnson & Johnson breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing the plan and its participants to pay "extraordinary" costs for prescription drugs as compared to other market options, resulting in millions of dollars in unnecessary costs to the plan. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the health plan fiduciaries mismanaged the plan's prescription drug benefits. That allegedly cost the plan and its employees "millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and lower wages or limited wage growth." The participants alleged the plan's fiduciaries failed to: -- Pay the lowest possible costs for the offered drugs; -- Obtain competitive bids from other prescription drug service providers; -- Monitor plan expenses; -- Negotiate the prescription drug contract with its pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), especially given its bargaining power as a Fortune 50 employer; -- Fully inform participants about the mail-order program, where drug prices were routinely higher than options at retail pharmacies; or -- Protect the health plan's assets. The complaint gave specific examples of these "extraordinary" costs. For instance, the plaintiffs claimed that the PBM charged the plan over $10,000 for a 90-day supply of a generic drug used to treat multiple sclerosis. This same drug was allegedly available without using insurance at various online and retail pharmacies for well under $100. The plan participants are asking for various remedies while also seeking to hold the fiduciaries personally liable under ERISA for their actions and inactions. The Johnson & Johnson lawsuit is one of the first of its kind, stemming from the disclosure and transparency in coverage requirements -- but it mirrors the retirement plan excessive fee lawsuits that have come before it. 10 Best Practices for Group Health Plan Fiduciaries In light of the Johnson & Johnson case and other health plan litigation, group health plan fiduciaries may want to evaluate their current governance structure. This includes any policies and procedures, especially regarding selecting and monitoring plan providers and determining the reasonableness of plan costs and fees. Here are 10 best practices health plan fiduciaries should consider: 1. Establish a health plan fiduciary committee and adopt a committee charter setting forth its responsibilities. Be sure to hold committee meetings regularly. 2. Review your existing group health plan service provider agreements to determine whether a broker or consultant should disclose fees to you under the CAA-21. Once received, ensure that you carefully review the disclosure, fully understanding what the plan and your employees are being charged. 3. Ensure that your third-party agreements are detailed enough to allow you to determine, understand, and monitor any plan fees or costs. 4. Establish a process to review and monitor your group health plan fees, ensuring they are reasonable based on the services you're receiving and in relation to industry standards (for example, you may want to perform a benchmark analysis on your vendors). 5. Periodically run your group health plan vendors through a "request for proposal" process, helping you determine whether you're receiving the best services at reasonable costs. 6. Consider amending your service provider agreements to incorporate any contractual obligations related to fee disclosure requirements or health plan transparency. 7. Implement ongoing training for plan fiduciaries so they fully understand their responsibilities under ERISA. 8. Acquire fiduciary liability insurance, protecting plan fiduciaries from breach liabilities. 9. Document your policies and procedures, as well as your decision-making processes when hiring or monitoring a plan vendor. Documenting your procedural process is critical to ensuring compliance with ERISA. 10. Work with counsel experienced in handling ERISA matters, which can help you understand and comply with all the nuances of group health plan compliance. Conclusion If you have questions about group health plan compliance, feel free to reach out to your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any attorney in our Employee Benefits and Tax Practice Group. We will continue to provide tips, guidance, and updates on employee benefits and other workplace law topics, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending Exposure Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, at December 31, 2023 and 2022, had approximately 800 and 900 lawsuits pending against former parent company E. I. du Pont de Nemours (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "At December 31, 2023 and 2022, Chemours had accruals of $39 million and $35 million related to these matters, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDK3xa ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- FG Group Holdings, Inc. is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to FG Group Holdings. In FG Group Holdings' experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. FG Group Holdings has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. Under the FG Group Holdings Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify FG Group Holdings for future losses, if any related to current product liability or personal injury claims arising out of products sold or distributed in the U.S. by the operations of the businesses being transferred to the Company in the Separation, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $250,000 per year, as well as to indemnify FG Group Holdings for all expenses (including legal fees) related to the defense of such claims. As of December 31, 2023, the Company has a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million, of which $0.1 million represents future payments on a settled case and the remaining $0.2 million represents the Company's estimate of its potential losses related to the settlement of open cases. When appropriate, FG Group Holdings may settle additional claims in the future. The Company does not expect the resolution of these cases to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VcOQQw ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dzTf4w ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Faces Personal Injury Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C were allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Certain asbestos-related proofs of claims in the bankruptcy case have been withdrawn in connection with closing the bankruptcy. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it was forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation. Such bankruptcy case was closed on June 14, 2023. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that regard." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AqiEE8 ********* 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 ***