/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240425.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 25, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 84 Headlines ACADIA LAPLACE: Ct. OKs Remote Appearance of Expert Witness in Hamm AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Declaration APEX HUMAN: Consideration on Bid for Class Status Stayed ARTHUR GALLAGHER: Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Initial Nod BETTERHELP INC: Court Junks Bid to Stay C.M. Suit BIOVENTUS INC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Ciarciello BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial Date for Swisscanto Suit Still Not Set BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial on Parker Suit Set for June 2, 2025 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: SM Merger/Arbitrage Appeals Suit Dismissal CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Only Choice & Stewart Sue Over Data Breach CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Twin Cities Sues Over Private Data Breach GERSON LEHRMAN: Miller Sues Over Customers' Unprotected Info HANMI FINANCIAL: Hearing for Class Action Settlement Set on Sep 16 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN: Discovery Stayed Pending Disposition JOHNS HOPKINS: Second Settlement Addendum Gets Initial Nod JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moultrie Sues Over Bandages' Deceptive Marketing JSW STEEL: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Nixed as Moot KAREN ST. GERMAIN: Seeks to Continue Response Deadline KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hobbs Suit Seeks to Certify Classes KOCHAVA INC: Greenley Suit Stayed Pending Mediation LOBLAW COS: Franchise Owner Sues Over Unethical Corporate Practices MEDICINE MAN: Wage Claim Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod MEDRITE LLC: Faces Velez Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages MEMOS PLACE: Lucero Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations NEW YORK: Attorneys' Fees Ruling in Allen Suit Appealed NORTH CAROLINA: Anderson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. OREGON: J.N. Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. SALTIE GIRL: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches SHARPSPRING INC: Morse Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir. SN SERVICING: Koontz Files 4th Cir. Appeal in FDCPA Suit STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Chadwick Insurance Suit SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Massel Suit TARGET CORP: Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over BIPA Violations TUG HILL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Luna FLSA Suit UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Manning Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Tang Sues Over Unlawful Customer Call Recording VISA INC: Supreme Court Declines Appeal in ATM Class Action YSABEL LLC: Hernandez Seeks Civil Penalties Under Labor Code's PAGA [^] Registration Ongoing for May 6 Class Action Conference ********* ACADIA LAPLACE: Ct. OKs Remote Appearance of Expert Witness in Hamm ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, v. ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC AND OCHSNER-ACADIA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for remote appearance of expert witness. The Defendants' rebuttal expert witness, Dr. Joseph Krock, is allowed to appear by video or telephonic conference at the April 24, 2024 hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YN0xKj at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM KYDC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to leave to file a short supplemental declaration regarding Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. On March 27, 2024, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs' counsel, Gene Stonebarger, to "sit for a deposition and answer questions as to how he prepared the summation of data contained in his two declarations" filed in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to the Court's order, the Parties jointly filed the transcript of Mr. Stonebarger's testimony. Amazon now seeks leave to address, through a short supplemental declaration, attached as Exhibit 1, two aspects of Mr. Stonebarger's testimony. First, Mr. Stonebarger repeatedly testified that he did not delete data. After reviewing Mr. Stonebarger's testimony, Amazon's expert, Dr. Valentin Estevez, confirms that Mr. Stonebarger's description of Microsoft Excel's functionality is "nonsensical," and that Mr. Stonebarger's process did in fact delete 106,640 records. Second, Amazon seeks to address, through Dr. Estevez's supplemental declaration, the impact of Mr. Stonebarger's mass-deletion. As Dr. Estevez explains, a recreation of Mr. Stonebarger's process shows that Mr. Stonebarger's results are "completely invalid." Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ouDBlx at no extra charge.[CC] APEX HUMAN: Consideration on Bid for Class Status Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OYAKIMIGBIA OKOKURO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APEX HUMAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02615-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza Quiñones Alejandro entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay consideration of her motion for conditional certification. Accordingly, consideration of the Plaintiffs motion for conditional class certification shall be stayed until further Order of the Court. The Defendant is a home health care agency in Delaware County Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SVsuet at no extra charge.[CC] ARTHUR GALLAGHER: Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ITXAMAR HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PRONTO CALIFORNIA AGENCY LLC, a California limited liability company; PRONTO CALIFORNIA GENERAL AGENCY, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:22-cv-01910-H-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn Huff entered an order: -- granting the parties' joint motion to add a second addendum to their joint stipulation of class and representative action settlement and release; -- granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; -- certifying the class for purposes of settlement; -- preliminarily approving the proposed settlement; -- appointing class representative and class counsel; and -- approving the form and manner of the notice of the proposed settlement to the settlement class members. The Court also appoints ILYM Group Inc. as the settlement administrator. Further, the Court schedules the final approval hearing for Monday, August 26, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. the Plaintiff must file a motion for final approval of the settlement, and any motions for fee awards and incentive awards on or before Monday, July 29, 2024. The settlement agreement defines the settlement class as: "all individuals who are or were employed by the Gallagher Entities as non-exempt employees in California from Oct. 28, 2018 until the date the Court grants Preliminary Approval." Under the settlement agreement, the Defendant will pay a gross settlement amount of $4,000,000. On Feb. 29, 2024, Plaintiff Itxamar Hernandez filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On Apr. 8, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to add a second addendum to their joint stipulation of class and representative action settlement and release. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' non-exempt California employees experienced various violations of California's wage-and-hour laws due to the Defendants' policies and practices. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in California as a non-exempt sales agent from January 2020 through October 2023. Arthur J. Gallagher is a global insurance brokerage and risk management services firm operating throughout California, with its headquarters in Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=24UGMS at no extra charge.[CC] BETTERHELP INC: Court Junks Bid to Stay C.M. Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying the motion to stay. Briefing on BetterHelp's motion to dismiss, paused during pendency of the stay motion, shall resume. Opposition is due April 25, 2024, with reply due May 2, 2024. The hearing will be set for May 16, 2024, subject to any subsequent determination that the motion will be submitted without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), in which case notice to that effect will be provided. The first of these consolidated actions was filed shortly after Defendant BetterHelp, Inc. entered into a consent order with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), providing for injunctive relief and a $7.8 million consumer redress fund that the FTC will be administering. Invoking the primary jurisdiction doctrine and/or the court's inherent docket management powers, BetterHelp moves to stay this action until the FTC has completed administration of the redress fund, or for at least six months. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FrWSMu at no extra charge.[CC] BIOVENTUS INC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Ciarciello ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CIARCIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIOVENTUS INC., KENNETH M. REALI, MARK L. SINGLETON, GREGORY O. ANGLUM, and SUSAN M. STALNECKER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order granting the Parties' consent motion to modify the scheduling order. The Defendants shall file and serve their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel by April 16, 2024; Lead Plaintiff shall file and serve its reply by May 7, 2024; and all other dates and deadlines remain in place as previously et. Bioventus is an orthobiologics company that develops medical device products for bone healing, bone graft and osteoarthritis. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oV6MOy at no extra charge.[CC] BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial Date for Swisscanto Suit Still Not Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending February 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2024 that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice hasn't set trial date for Swisscanto class suit. On July 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the putative Ontario class action (Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al.) filed a motion for class certification and for leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 17, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019. Discovery is proceeding and the Court has not set a trial date. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments based in Canada. BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial on Parker Suit Set for June 2, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending February 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2024 that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has set trial date for Parker employment class suit on June 2, 2025. On March 17, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Parker v. BlackBerry Limited). The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment with the Company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20 million, or such other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019. The parties participated in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which did not result in an agreement. The Court has set a trial date of June 2, 2025, and scheduled a pre-trial conference on December 4, 2024. Discovery is proceeding. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments based in Canada. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: SM Merger/Arbitrage Appeals Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs SM Merger/Arbitrage, L.P, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order, and Judgment dated February 29, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled as SM Merger/Arbitrage, L.P., SM Investors, L.P. and SM Investors II, L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, GIOVANNI CAFORIO, VICKI L. SATO, PETER J. ARDUINI, ROBERT BERTOLINI, MATTHEW W. EMMENS, MICHAEL GROBSTEIN, ALAN J. LACY, DINESH C. PALIWAL, THEODORE R. SAMUELS, GERALD L. STORCH and KAREN H. VOUSDEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08255, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This class action is brought on behalf of all former Celgene shareholders that received Contingent Value Rights in exchange for their Celgene shares pursuant to Bristol's $74 billion acquisition of Celgene on November 20, 2019, and who were damaged thereby. The claims asserted are based on materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts in the Joint Proxy, made in violation of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. In a prior Opinion and Order, familiarity with which is presumed, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on March 1, 2023, finding that -- among other issues -- Plaintiffs had failed to plead scienter. With leave of Court, Plaintiffs thereafter filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on April 17, 2023, adding allegations in an effort to address that defect. Although the SAC includes all of the claims and most of the Defendants from the prior pleading, Plaintiffs confirm that the only claims they are still pressing are those against BMS, Dr. Giovanni Caforio, and Dr. Samit Hirawat under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. On May 12, 2023, the Defendants moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss those claims, arguing that, among other things, Plaintiffs still do not plausibly allege scienter. On February 29, 2024, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' motion and dismissing Plaintiffs' SAC. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants; accordingly, the case was closed. The appellate case is captioned as SM Merger/Arbitrage, L.P. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. 24-826, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 1, 2024.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Defendants-Appellees BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al., are represented by: John Joseph Clarke, Jr., Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Only Choice & Stewart Sue Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- ONLY CHOICE URGENT CARE & MED SPA and STEWART SCHARFMAN PHYSICAL THERAPY, PC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., OPTUM, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01271-JRT-TNL (D. Minn., April 10, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard their systems from foreseeable cyberattacks that impacted Plaintiffs' business operations and Plaintiffs' and Class members' personally identifiable information and financial account information stored within Defendants' information network. On or about February 21, 2024, Change experienced a data breach event through which Plaintiff's and Class members’ private information in possession of Change and/or Defendants was obtained by an unauthorized party. According to publicly available information, including statements by Defendants, Change's systems were accessed by cybercriminals. The Defendants did not detect the breach until it was too late. The cyberattack was a ransomware attack that incapacitated Defendants' systems for weeks, disrupting the claims process and causing delays in the processing and payment of insurance claims, says the suit. The Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, bailment, and unjust enrichment. Change provides revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Timothy Becker, Esq. Zackary Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON//BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612)436-1800 Facsimile: (612)436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and - William M. Audet, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3275 Telephone:(415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Twin Cities Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ TWIN CITIES COUNSELING LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-01254-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., April 10, 2024) asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment in connection with the Defendant's failure to maintain data security measures adequate to protect patients' personal health information. The complaint alleges that a ransomware group claims to have accessed Change's servers and seized 6 terabytes of critical confidential and highly sensitive information, resulting in network outages that have already impacted millions of patients and physicians across the country. On February 21, 2024, Change disclosed that it was the subject of this massive data breach whereby hackers known as "ALPHV/Blackcat," the suit says. Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare is a healthcare technology company that provides clinical, financial, administrative, and patient management solutions to healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. David W. Asp, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone : (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com dwasp@locklaw.com GERSON LEHRMAN: Miller Sues Over Customers' Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------ OLIVER MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02725 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information of its customers. On or about March 12, 2024, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other data breach victims a Notice of Data Security Incident letter, informing them that GLG has experienced a ransomware incident in which an unauthorized third party accessed data from GLG's computer system. However, the Defendant failed to provide, the date that Defendant detected the data breach, the identity of the cybercriminals who perpetrated this 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, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc. provides services to its clients in the business and legal fields, including connecting its clients with experts in specific topics, businesses, or industries through calls, private meetings, placements, or expert witness services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com HANMI FINANCIAL: Hearing for Class Action Settlement Set on Sep 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers Hanmi Financial Corporation publicly-traded common stock (NASDAQ: HAFC): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF HANMI FINANCIAL CORPORATION ("HANMI") FROM AUGUST 9, 2018 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that a hearing will be held on September 6, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, First Street U.S. Courthouse, 350 W. First Street, Courtroom 6B, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by telephonic or videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $3,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up one-third of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $80,000, and an award of no more than $10,000 to Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 23, 2023 ("Stipulation"). If you purchased publicly-traded Hanmi common stock during the period from August 9, 2018 and April 30, 2020, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Hanmi common stock. The Settlement is not an admission or concession by Hanmi, its counsel, or any of the Defendants of the truth of any of the allegations in the Action, or of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any kind, nor is it a concession that any Settlement Class Member directly or indirectly suffered any damages, harm, or loss. If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for receiving a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator at: Hanmi Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net/Hanmi. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of Claim electronically or postmarked no later than August 7, 2024 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in the Long Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received no later than August 16, 2024. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and an award to Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than August 16, 2024, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Central District of California First Street U.S. Courthouse 350 W. First Street, Suite 4311 Los Angeles, CA 90012 LEAD COUNSEL: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Daniel Tyre-Karp 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Naeun Rim 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Daniel Tyre-Karp 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 19, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN] INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN: Discovery Stayed Pending Disposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN DODD, et al., v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, ILA LOCAL 1475, Case No. 4:23-cv-00327-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Ray entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending disposition of its motion to dismiss. International Longshoremen is a union of maritime workers in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8fdnpb at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNS HOPKINS: Second Settlement Addendum Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA BOTTS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie Rubin entered an order preliminarily approving second settlement addendum and directing notice to second group of additional class members. 1. The terms of this Court's Dec. 20, 2022, Order preliminarily approving settlement and directing notice to Settlement Class remain in effect. 2. The terms of this Court's April 20, 2023 Order finally approving the settlement and granting Class Counsel's motion for an award of Attorneys' fees and litigation costs and for a service award remain in effect. 3. The terms of this Court's Aug. 8, 2023 Order preliminarily approving settlement addendum and directing notice to additional class Members remain in effect. 4. The terms of this Court's Dec. 13, 2023 Orders finally approving the settlement and granting Class Counsel's motion for an award of Attorneys' fees and litigation costs and for a service award remain in effect. 5. The Settlement Class, defined as "all people who paid the Defendant tuition and/or fees for the Spring Semester 2020, which tuition and fees have not been refunded," appropriately encompasses the Second Group of Additional Students who may assert the claims alleged in Counts I and II of Named Plaintiff Elena Botts's Amended Complaint against the Defendant. 6. The Court finds that the Second Addendum concerns 2,607 members of the Settlement Class, the Second Group of Additional Students. 7. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e) at 2:00 p.m. on July 31, 2024, in Courtroom 3A of the United States District Courthouse located at 101 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, Maryland. The Defendant is a private research university in Baltimore, Maryland. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mCSqBO at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moultrie Sues Over Bandages' Deceptive Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHARNAY MOULTRIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and KENVUE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04757 (D.N.J., April 10, 2024) is a class action asserting claims for breach of warranties, fraud, state consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment in connection with the Defendants' deceptive marketing of adhesive bandages. According to the complaint, the Defendants' adhesive bandages are marketed under the trademarked name "Band-Aid," and serve millions of people daily for the treatment of cuts, scrapes, and burns. Their packaging claims the bandages are made from "stretchable, comfortable fabric" and are designed to wick away fluids and keep one's wound clean. However, unbeknownst to consumers, these products are unfit for their intended purpose because they contain PFAS, "forever chemicals," which are dangerous to human health, says the suit. Headquartered in New Brunswick, NJ, Johnson & Johnson develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells pharmaceutical products and medical devices. [BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, Fl 32 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com JSW STEEL: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Nixed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON POLEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JSW STEEL USA OHIO, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00085-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order denying as moot the Defendant's motion for reconsideration, without prejudice to Defendant's ability to raise issues related to the Plaintiff Polen's testimony again during the course of litigation. The Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court's order partially granting plaintiff's bid for conditional certification. The Defendant is an electric arc furnace steel plant. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AFER2y at no extra charge.[CC] KAREN ST. GERMAIN: Seeks to Continue Response Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.M., by Next Friend MARIO MENDOZA, ET AL., V. KAREN G. ST. GERMAIN, ET AL. Case No. 3:23-cv-01499-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying further action on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and/or continuing Defendants' deadline for responding to same pending a ruling on the Defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. The Defendants suggest that considerations of judicial economy for the Court and all parties militate in favor of staying the class action aspect of the litigation and/or continuing the Defendants’ deadline for filing an opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion until such time as their pending Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss has been adjudicated, since a grant of said motion would obviate any need for the Court to take up the issue of class certification or for the Defendants to file an opposition to same. Counsel for Plaintiffs, Matthew S. Vogel, has been consulted regarding the filing of this motion and he has indicated that the Plaintiffs have no opposition to same. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kAJHtg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Dennis J. Phayer, Esq. Gregory C. Fahrenholt, Esq. BURGLASS TANKERSLEY GAUDIN PHAYER 5213 Airline Drive Metairie, LA 70001-5602 Telephone: (504) 836-0408 Facsimile: (504) 287-0448 E-mail: dphayer@burglass.com gfahrenholt@burglass.com KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hobbs Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO BELL, and ROBERT SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC., and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Classes under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Class A: "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by the Defendants while being based out of the Walmart dedicated location in Johnstown, New York and/or the target dedicated location in Amsterdam, New York, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of class notice." Subclass 1: "all members of Class A who have been away from their assigned base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on a load assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York State during such 24-hour period." Class B: "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by The Defendants while being based out of Defendants' Syracuse, New York location, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of class notice. Membership in Class B is limited to time logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York State." Subclass 2: "all members of Class B who have been away from their assigned base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on a load assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York State during such 24-hour period." Class C: "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by The Defendants while being based out of a work location outside of New York State, but who have made at least one pickup and/or delivery in New York State and logged sleeper berth time in New York State, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of class notice. Membership in Class C is limited to time logged as "sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York state." Subclass 3: "all members of Class C who have been away from their assigned base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on a load assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York State during such 24-hour period." The Classes exclude Drivers who are paid hourly, typically operating a "day cab" truck without a sleeper berth, and who return home every night; as well as "slip seat" Drivers who are assigned short routes that allow them to return home every night. The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs Ricardo Bell, Robert Shaw, and Tavares Hobbs as Class representatives under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP to serve as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4). The Plaintiffs further request that the Court permit them to submit a proposed form of notice to the Class and a notice plan to the Court if the motion is granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGK0vd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher M. McNerney, Esq. Daniel S. Stromberg, Esq. Jarron McAllister, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com dstromberg@outtengolden.com jmcallister@outtengolden.com - and - Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schnedierwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com KOCHAVA INC: Greenley Suit Stayed Pending Mediation --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GREENLEY, v. KOCHAVA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01327-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to temporarily stay the proceedings in light of impending mediation. The parties shall have leave to file motions to amend the pleadings on or before Oct. 11, 2024. Class discovery is to be completed by Jan. 10, 2025. The Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by Feb. 14, 2025. Additionally, the parties are ordered to file a joint status report notifying the Court of the status of the case following mediation no later than June 17, 2024. On Mar. 14, 2024, the Court set an updated scheduling order. Under the scheduling order, motions to amend the pleadings are due on or before April 12, 2024; fact and class discovery must be completed on or before July 1, 2024; and motions for class certification must be filed on or before Aug. 9, 2024. The parties aver that they have scheduled an in-person mediation for June 3, 2024 and that an extension will aid in facilitating a meaningful settlement because the ongoing costs of litigation will reduce whatever settlement amount may be available to the parties. The parties note they will cancel the upcoming mediation if the Court does not grant a stay in the proceedings. Kochava provides online advertising services. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hh7knk at no extra charge.[CC] LOBLAW COS: Franchise Owner Sues Over Unethical Corporate Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Brockbank and Angelina King of CBC News reports that a former Shoppers Drug Mart franchise owner has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the Canadian retail pharmacy chain, and its parent company Loblaw, alleging the companies imposed "unsafe and unethical" corporate practices on franchise owner pharmacists to increase profits. The claim was filed in Ontario Superior Court last week and intends to cover both franchise owners whose agreements have been terminated since 2014 and current franchise owners in Ontario. It has not yet been certified or tested in court. The crux of the lawsuit concerns how corporate practices like imposing targets on the volume of medication reviews, cutting back support staff hours, and other mandates to increase revenue, have allegedly put Shoppers Drug Mart franchise owners, who are also pharmacists, in an "irredeemable conflict of interest." "When you put policies on the associate owner that require [them] to breach their professional obligations at the risk of losing their franchise . . . you place them in a conflict of interest between their obligations to patients and their obligations to the business," said lawyer Aly Haji, from Ricketts Harris law firm, which filed the proposed class action. The consequences of that conflict could include a pharmacist having their licence suspended or revoked, according to the lawsuit. 'Case has no merit': Loblaw Loblaw and Shoppers Drug Mart have not yet filed statements of defence in the case. But in an email statement, Loblaw spokesperson Dave Bauer told CBC News "this case has no merit whatsoever, and we intend to vigorously defend it." The lawsuit was filed in the wake of a CBC News investigation, which revealed how some former Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacy employees believe the company is taking advantage of Ontario's medication reviews program, MedsCheck, by pushing staff to bill the government for consultations patients don't necessarily need. And how despite the chain's president denying the existence of targets for those services, dozens of internal records from frustrated pharmacists showed the chain has targets for those professional services and corporate management pressured owners to meet those numbers. The Ontario College of Pharmacists has since said it's working with a legal team to explore its options after thousands of pharmacy employees came forward to share "deeply troubling" stories about corporate pressure to perform those billable services. Former owner 'distraught' when franchise was revoked In the case of former franchise owners like the lead plaintiff, Sivajanan Sivapalan, the claim alleges he and others had their franchises revoked, or not renewed, for criticizing the allegedly unethical practices. According to the court filing, Shoppers informed Sivapalan that his franchise in Beamsville, Ont. had been terminated in January 2023. Shoppers did not provide Sivapalan any reasons for its decision. "He was distraught when this happened. It was a very difficult time in his life," said Haji about his client. "[Sivapalan] just wanted to seek justice and see redress for the pain and the kind of difficulties that many associates are going through." For the proposed class of current franchise owners, the lawsuit alleges corporate practices, like medication review targets, interfere with their ability to use their professional judgment as pharmacists and to care for patients safely and effectively. "Shoppers Drug Mart has taken no action to address the clear risks posed by the Corporate Practices to patient safety, the resulting breach of Franchisees' professional and ethical obligations, and the consequent risk of regulatory scrutiny and sanction by the Ontario College of Pharmacists," reads the claim. "Instead, Shoppers Drug Mart has more aggressively implemented the Corporate Practices to maximize profits." A Shoppers Drug Mart spokesperson previously told CBC News the decision to deliver a professional service, like a medication review, must be made by a pharmacist using their judgment. "Our role is to assist associate owners and their pharmacy teams to deliver these services. That includes working with the associates on a yearly plan that is specific to the pharmacy's unique situation and patient needs in the community," said the previous statement from spokesperson Catherine Thomas. In practice, the lawsuit alleges the pharmacy chain is acting in a way that defeats the purpose of its franchise agreements because if a pharmacy owner faces sanctions from the provincial regulator, as a result of corporate practices, it would give Shoppers grounds to terminate its franchise agreement with that franchise owner. As a result, the proposed class action is looking for the court to determine that Shoppers breached its franchise agreements with the class and to award damages for those alleged breaches. [GN] MEDICINE MAN: Wage Claim Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that the New Mexico federal court preliminarily approved a class action settlement for $525,000 in a wage claim asserted by a group of hourly employees from two cannabis dispensary chains, Medicine Man Technologies, Inc. (which does business in New Mexico as Schwazze) and R. Greenleaf Organics, Inc. The "budtenders," as the employees are classified, typically earn more than $30 per month in tips in addition to an hourly rate of $15.75. The lawsuit alleges that it is company-wide policy for cash tips to be pooled and distributed to employees at the end of each workday in proportion to the total hours worked by each employee that day. On the other hand, debit tips -- tips left by a customer paying with a debit card through the store's electronic payment system -- are pooled and divided in the same manner but distributed biweekly through the employees' paychecks. The budtenders' complaint alleges that the stores supervisors, who make $3 per hour more, receive larger portions of the tips than the budtenders despite the latter performing more customer-related work. The class action lawsuit claims that the dispensaries violated Federal and New Mexico wage laws by not paying the budtenders all the tips paid to them by customers. Following mediation, the parties agreed to settle the claims for $525,000, of which $322,813.67 will be allocated for the defined class of 250 budtenders with the named Plaintiff receiving $10,000. The remaining amount will be divided between administration costs and litigation expenses, with the bulk going to the budtenders' attorneys' fees. An additional amount will be added to the settlement fund to cover the employees' payroll taxes. Per the federal rule governing class actions, the New Mexico court preliminarily approved the settlement on April 1, 2024. [GN] MEDRITE LLC: Faces Velez Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL VELEZ, and GILBERT VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDRITE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02707 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024) seeks to recover underpayment caused by failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, agreed upon wages, untimely wage payments, and other damages for Plaintiffs and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions including but not limited to generalists who work or have worked for MedRite, LLC. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant failed to provide them any compensation for the final weeks they worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's and New York Labor Law's requirements to pay proper minimum wages and overtime. Gabriel Velez was employed by MedRite as an hourly worker from in or around August 2023 to November 2023 while Gilbert Velez was employed by MedRite as an hourly worker from in or around August 2023 to January 2024. During their employment, Plaintiffs did not receive proper and timely wage payments. In addition, they did not get accurate wage statements with each payment of wages as required by the NYLL, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, MedRite LLC provides urgent care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Hunter G Benharris, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 MEMOS PLACE: Lucero Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------- RENE LUCERO, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMO’S PLACE LLC and JARAS MEMO, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04762 (D.N.J., April 10, 2024), seeks for damages and equitable relief based upon willful violations that the Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; the overtime provisions of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law; the minimum wage provisions of the NJWHL; and the full payment provision of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a food prep, cook, and general laborer from on or about September 11, 2014 through September 6, 2023. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants required Plaintiff to work between 56 and 91 hours each week. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, or the minimum wage rate for any hours that he worked in excess of 40 each week. Additionally, Defendants routinely paid Plaintiff at a straight-time hourly rate of pay that often fell below the minimum wage rate required by the NJWHL and NJWPL, says the suit. Memo's Place LLC was and is a limited liability corporation that owns and operates a restaurant business located at 235 State Route 31 South, Washington, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com NEW YORK: Attorneys' Fees Ruling in Allen Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------- DR. CAROL MOORES is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Peter Allen, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-8173, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case type is stated as Prisoner, State, Civil Rights. The Plaintiff in the case filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, which the Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Class counsel, Law Office of Amy Jane Agnew, P.C., for $3,796, 902.82 in full satisfaction of the Plaintiff Class' motion for attorney fees and costs. The Order was entered by Judge Loretta A. Preska on Mar. 1, 2024. On Mar. 22, 2024, the Clerk's judgment was entered as stated in the Court's Order dated March 1, 2024. Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Class counsel, Law Office of Amy Jane Agnew, P.C. The appellate case is captioned Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Case No. 24-785, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 28, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PETER ALLEN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Amy Jane Agnew, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AMY JANE AGNEW, P.C. 24 5th Avenue, Suite 1701 New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (973) 600-1724 Defendants-Appellants DR. CAROL MOORES, et al. are represented by: Oriana L. Kiley, Esq. WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP One Commerce Plaza Albany, NY 12260 NORTH CAROLINA: Anderson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff ANDREW D. ANDERSON filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 18, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled as ANDREW D. ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, ROY COOPER, III, THE OFFICE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE, CHERI BEASLEY, PAUL NEWBY, NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT 30, BRADLEY B. LETTS, NORTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT, ROY T. WIJEWICKRAMA, KRISTINA L. EARWOOD, KALEB D. WINGATE, DONA F. FORGA, JOHN J. PAVEY, JR., JARED R. DAVIS, THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, JOSHUA STEIN, THE 43RD PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT, THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ASHLEY H. WELCH, CHRISTINA B. MATHESON, ANDREW C. BUCKNER, JACOB P. PHELPS, JENNACA D. HUGHS, SUMER L. ALLEN, JACKSON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA, JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, CHIP L. HALL, CAN SURETY, HEATHER BAKER, SHANNON H. QUEEN, ANN D. MELTON, THE OFFICE OF THE JACKSON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE JACKSON COUNTY MAGISTRATE, JEFFERY W. POWELL, SAMUEL K. BOWERS, TYLER B. BRYSON, DEREK A. ROBINSON, MEGAN L. RHINEHART, KATHLEEN D. BREEDLOVE, SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, LYNN P. DANN, CHERYL L. CONTINO-CONNER, BARBARA B. PUTMAN, THOMAS R. BROOKS, JOHN DOES 1-99, and JANE DOES 1-99, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00034-MR-WCM, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On February 2, 2024, the pro se Plaintiff Andrew D. Anderson brought numerous federal and state law claims against the Defendants, including federal constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985 for violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state law constitutional claims under the North Carolina Constitution, as well as state law claims for intentional torts, negligence, "breaches of public trust," and promissory estoppel. One alleged incident arose from the Plaintiff's participation in an ethics course at Southwestern Community College, where his professor, Defendant Dann, removed a post that the Plaintiff made on the class online forum because Dann considered it disrespectful. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dann gave him poor grades in his class in retaliation for him exercising his free speech rights, and that Defendants Dann, Contino-Connor, Putman, and Brooks violated his First Amendment rights by censoring him. In a separate incident, the Plaintiff was charged with trespass, failure to appear on misdemeanor, resisting a public officer, and violation of a court order. These charges apparently arose from the Plaintiff refusing to wear a face mask, and instead wearing a toy football helmet, when visiting the Jackson County Courthouse. On March 18, 2024, Chief Judge Martin Reidinger signed an Order dismissing the case without prejudice. The Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was also denied. The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Anderson v. State of North Carolina, Case No. 24-1277, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 2, 2024.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW D. ANDERSON, an individual, an American, and Disabled Veteran of Sylva, NC; We the People; All similarly situated free Americans, of Sylva, North Carolina, appears pro se. OREGON: J.N. Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs J. N., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order, and Judgment dated February 29, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled as J.N., et al. v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00096-AA, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In the putative class action filed in January 2019, four Oregon public school children with disabilities and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. ("COPAA") assert claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("Title II"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the Oregon Department of Education ("ODE"), ODE Director and Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction Colt Gill, and Oregon Governor and Superintendent of Public Instruction Katherine Brown. Plaintiffs E.O., J.V., B.M., J.N., and COPAA bring the action on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated Oregon students who are eligible under the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504 for special education and related services and are currently being subjected to a shortened school day or are at substantial risk of being subjected to a shortened school day due to their disability related behaviors. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the IDEA, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act alleging a systemic failure of policies and procedures that deny them a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") and that result in discrimination. Specifically, they allege that the state of Oregon has known for years that many Oregon public schools have unnecessarily and unlawfully shortened the school day for children with disability-related behaviors. They allege that the State has an affirmative statutory duty to monitor and assist the school districts and enforce the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504 provisions, and that the State has failed to fulfill its statutory duty under these statutes due to several systemic deficiencies. The Plaintiffs further allege that these deficiencies have resulted in a FAPE denial and discrimination to the named Plaintiffs and others like them. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief. In September 2020, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing. In February 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2021, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement Agreement that required them to jointly select a neutral expert to examine the use of shortened school days and to formulate remedies to ensure that Oregon students with disabilities receive a FAPE in the LRE, free from discrimination. On October 27, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which the Court granted on February 29, 2024 through an Order entered by Judge Ann Aiken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The Court also denied as moot the pending motions for summary judgment and related motions. The appellate case is captioned as J.N., et al. v. Oregon Department of Education, et al., Case No. 24-2080, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 3, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due April 8, 2024; -- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due April 12, 2024; -- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on May 13, 2024; -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on June 21, 2024; -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on July 22, 2024; -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN] SALTIE GIRL: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------- GILBERTO SANTIAGO HERNANDEZ, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of himself and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. SALTIE GIRL LA LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV09088 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2024) alleges Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and seeks civil penalties under the Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Defendant Saltie Girl first began to employ Plaintiff as dishwasher in or around June 2023 to work at its restaurant. Plaintiff's employment ended in or around July 2023. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff did not receive properly-calculated overtime wages and his incentive payments and/or bonus payments were not factored into the employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of deciphering the correct overtime rate of pay. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to provide all compliant meal periods and authorize and permit all compliant rest periods to which Plaintiff was entitled, says the suit. Saltie Girl LA is a limited liability company that owns and operates a restaurant located at 8615 Sunset Blvd, West Hollywood, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maralle Messrelian, Esq. MM LAW, APC 500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 810-7747 Facsimile: (818) 230-9018 E-mail: maralle@mmlawapc.com SHARPSPRING INC: Morse Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRADFORD MORSE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Bradford Morse, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARPSPRING, INC., and RICHARD CARLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00209-RH-HTC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated former public stockholders of SharpSpring, Inc., against SharpSpring and the former members of the Company's board of directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims arise from the all-cash sale of SharpSpring to Constant Contact, Inc., an online marketing tech company owned by private equity sponsors Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. and Siris Capital Group, LLC for $17.10 per share. On Sept. 12, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Robert L. Hinkle on Feb. 28, 2024. The Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The appellate case is captioned Bradford Morse v. SharpSpring, Inc., and Richard Carlson, Case No. 24-10945, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 28, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRADFORD MORSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard D. Rivera, Esq. Alan S. Wachs, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 598-6110 Facsimile: (904) 598-6210 Email: rrivera@sgrlaw.com awachs@sgrlaw.com SN SERVICING: Koontz Files 4th Cir. Appeal in FDCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KOONTZ is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled John Koontz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SN Servicing Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00363-JPB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on Dec. 19, 2023, was brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The appellate case is captioned John Koontz v. SN Servicing Corporation, Case No. 24-1261, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 28, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN KOONTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jason Edward Causey, Esq. BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC 1358 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 242-8410 - and - Denali Skye Hedrick, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 940-9809 (304) 345-6555 Defendants-Appellees SN SERVICING CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Blake N. Humphrey, Esq. Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD 500 Virginia Street, East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 348-2413 (304) 348-2419 - and - Tai Shadrick Kluemper, Esq. Nicholas Patrick Mooney, II, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC Spilman Center 300 Kanawha Boulevard, East P.O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321 Telephone: (304) 340-3860 STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Chadwick Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 18, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled ROSE CHADWICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-01161-DPM, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas-Central. The case was filed on November 29, 2021, over the Defendant's breach of its insurance contracts with the Plaintiff and similarly situated insureds in Arkansas by improperly reducing the actual cash value of insureds' loss vehicles when adjusting total loss claims. The Defendant used typical negotiation adjustments instead of using the fair market price in determining the actual cash value of loss vehicles. These adjustments are based on the factually erroneous assumption that insureds would be able to negotiate a reduction in the list price of comparable used automobiles, which would be highly atypical and contrary to the modern used car industry's market pricing and inventory management practices. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members received an amount less than the actual cash value required by State Farm's insurance contracts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. entered an order on March 18, 2024: -- Granting Chadwick's motion for class certification; -- Partly granting and partly denying State Farm's motion for summary judgment; and -- Denying motions to exclude expert testimonies. The Court certified the class as defined to pursue Chadwick's breach claim. The Court directed the parties to do some targeted discovery to provide the Court a firmer number on class size. The Court also directed the parties to confer and make a proposal about the form, substance, and method of notice. Joint report on class size and notice issues are due by April 30, 2024. The appellate case is captioned as Rose Chadwick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 24-8004, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2024.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is represented by: Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq. WHEELER & TRIGG One Metropolitan Square; Suite 2825 211 N. Broadway Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (303) 244-0117 - and - Eric L. Robertson, Esq. WHEELER & TRIGG 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202-0000 Telephone: (303) 244-1800 - and - Richard Shane Strabala, Esq. MUNSON & ROWLETT One Allied Drive, Suite 1600 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 374-6535 SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Massel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, doing business as Millionaire Match, is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Michael Massel, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Successfulmatch.com, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02389-PCP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. On Oct. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge P. Casey Pitts on Feb. 27, 2024. The Court concluded that the Defendant has not shown that Mr. Massel assented to its Service Agreement. Its motion to compel arbitration under that agreement is, therefore, denied. The appellate case is captioned Massel v. Successfulmatch.com, Case No. 24-1870, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 28, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 2, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on May 7, 2024; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on June 6, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL MASSEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Leah Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 224-3881 TARGET CORP: Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over BIPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- NBC Chicago reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Target, accusing the Minnesota-based retailer of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, a law meant to prevent companies in Illinois from collecting "biometric" data like facial recognition from consumers without written consent. The lawsuit, filed March 11 in a Cook County Court, alleges Target's surveillance systems "surreptitiously" collects biometric data on customers without them knowing. "Target does not notify customers of this fact prior to store entry, nor does it obtain consent prior to collecting its customers’ Biometric Data," the lawsuit says, adding at the retailer is outfitted with "top of the line" facial recognition throughout its stores as part of anti-theft efforts. BIPA, passed in 2008, says companies in Illinois are not allowed to collect, store or give out "biometric data," which includes things like face or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice and obtaining personal consent. The act also requires companies to specify how the information would be retained, and when it would be destroyed. According to the suit, Target's "advanced system of electronic surveillance" includes operating 14 investigation centers as well as two forensic labs to "enhance video footage and analyze finger prints." While intending to detect shoplifters, the system also captures customers faces every time they enter or leave the property, the suit alleges. "There are numerous instances of former Target employees detailing its facial recognition system circulation on the internet as well," the lawsuit said, referencing a TikTok page dedicated to customers and ex-employees discussing concerns about the system. The suit intends to seek $5,000 for "each and every intentional reckless violation" of the law, or statuary damages of $1,000 for any violation found to have been committed negligently. It also intends to collect attorneys fees and other litigation expenses. The suit concludes by demanding the matter be tried before a jury. The suit is similar to other recent class-action lawsuits against large companies alleging they violated BIPA. In 2022, a class-action settlement alleged Facebook violated the law, resulting in a $650 million settlement. More than a million Illinois Facebook users received checks for nearly $400 each as part of the case. Class-action lawsuits claiming the violation of Illinois' BIPA law were also field against Google, Snapchat and TikTok. Target did not immediately respond to NBC Chicago's request for comment. [GN] TUG HILL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Luna FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Tug Hill Operating, LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 20, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled RANDY LUNA, individually and for others similarly situated v. TUG HILL OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00361-JPB, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff on December 19, 2023 to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Tug Hill Operating under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Luna and the other day rate workers regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Tug Hill did not pay Luna and its other day rate workers overtime. Instead, Tug Hill misclassified them as independent contractors and paid them a flat amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a workweek, says the suit. On February 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to transfer or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. On March 20, Judge John Preston Bailey entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion. The appellate case is captioned as Tug Hill Operating, LLC v. Randy Luna, Case No. 24-1281, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 3, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on May 13, 2024; and -- Response Brief is due on June 12, 2024.[BN] Defendant-Appellant TUG HILL OPERATING, LLC is represented by: Erin J. McLaughlin, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Union Trust Building 501 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-4413 Telephone: (412) 392-2090 Plaintiff-Appellee RANDY LUNA, individually and for others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard Jennings Burch, Esq. RICHARD BURCH 11 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 - and - Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street P. O. Box 3081 Charleston, WV 25331-0000 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Manning Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- GREG MANNING, Individually, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation, a/k/a The University of Tennessee Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00164 (E.D. Tenn., April 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a flight nurse along with other crew members such as paramedics and nurses. He asserts that Defendant had a common plan and practice of denying him one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods. Based in Knoxville, TN, University Health System owns and operates an emergency air medical critical care transportation service called UT Lifestar. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Tang Sues Over Unlawful Customer Call Recording ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH TANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LTD., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-02158-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2024) arises from Defendant's conduct of monitoring and recording the telephonic communications between consumers and its customer service representatives without first providing notice or obtaining the customer's consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that it is recording telephonic communications at the outset of the call, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Headquartered in West Sussex, England, Virgin Atlantic is a British airline carrier that operates in the United States. Its routes include flights out of Los Angeles and San Francisco. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com VISA INC: Supreme Court Declines Appeal in ATM Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 2024 declined to hear an appeal from Visa (V.N), opens new tab and Mastercard (MA.N), opens new tab over a decision allowing consumers and ATM operators to band together in class actions seeking billions of dollars in damages over access fees. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the credit card companies last year when it upheld, opens new tab a trial judge's decision granting the cases class action status. Visa and Mastercard argued that the judge failed to conduct a "rigorous analysis" before certifying three class-actions featuring potentially hundreds of millions of members. Visa and Mastercard did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Steve Berman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said they were "confident that the D.C. Circuit would be upheld and are pleased with this victory." Consumers and operators of independent, non-bank ATMs in 2011 sued Visa, Mastercard and a group of banks for alleged violations of U.S. antitrust law. Several big banks settled claims for tens of millions of dollars. The plaintiffs argue that the rules for ATM access fees have caused them to pay artificially higher amounts for using machines that are not affiliated with their bank. Three class actions, which include two groups of consumers and about 3,400 non-bank ATM operators, seek damages of more than $9 billion. Visa and Mastercard have denied the allegations. In their petition to the Supreme Court, they argued that allowing the cases to proceed as class actions would contribute to "rampant confusion" and "disarray" about the legal standards that should apply to class certification. Attorneys for the consumers and ATM operators countered that the D.C. Circuit "fully considered defendants' criticism of the district court's evaluation of the evidence and found it utterly unmeritorious." Visa and Mastercard face other antitrust allegations over card fees. In Brooklyn federal court, the two companies are immersed in a long-running legal proceeding over claims that they overcharged merchants and others in transactions involving debit and credit cards. A federal appeals court last year upheld a $5.6 billion settlement with a class of merchants as part of the Brooklyn case. The case is Visa Inc et al v. National ATM Council et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-814. [GN] YSABEL LLC: Hernandez Seeks Civil Penalties Under Labor Code's PAGA ------------------------------------------------------------------- GILBER SANTIAGO LOPEZ HERNANDEZ (aka Jilber Hernandes), as an "aggrieved employee," on behalf of himself and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004), Plaintiff v. YSABEL LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09090 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2024), arises under the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Defendant Ysabel first began to employ Plaintiff in or around November 2022 to work at its restaurant. Plaintiff's employment ended on or around January 20, 2024. Ysabel has failed to pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees for all time worked or subject to its control. It required Plaintiff and aggrieved employees to perform necessary work duties prior to clocking in for the start of their shifts and after clocking out at the end of their shifts but it failed to compensate them for this time, says the suit. Ysabel is a California limited liability company that operates a restaurant located at 945 N. Fairfax Ave, West Hollywood, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maralle Messrelian, Esq. MM LAW, APC 500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 810-7747 Facsimile: (818) 230-9018 [^] Registration Ongoing for May 6 Class Action Conference ---------------------------------------------------------- Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference to be held next month in Manhattan. This year's event is led by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP; and Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, as conference chairs. The agenda for CAME 2024 are: (A) State of the Industry: Class Action Review Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley of Duane Morris will present key findings from their inaugural Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2024. Their one-of-a- kind publication provides an analysis of class action trends impacting Corporate America, including, Class Action Fairness Act, mass appeals, consumer fraud, data breaches and more. (B) The Ethics of Wiretapping and Data Privacy Class Actions David Bertoni (Moderator), Partner, Brann & Isaacson; Kelly Iverson, Partner, Lynch Carpenter; Terence "Terry" Coates, Managing Partner, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco; David Lietz, Senior Partner, Milberg; and Max Bernstein, Associate, Cooley, will delve into the moral intricacies of wiretapping and data privacy class actions; explore legal, ethical, and technological dimensions, weighing individual rights against security needs; and navigate through case studies, ethical dilemmas, and corporate responsibilities, while scrutinizing the global landscape of privacy regulations. (C) Maximizing Financial Strategy: Exploring Qualified Settlement Funds Nicholas Sanchez (Moderator), Partner, Miller Kaplan; Eric Gladbach, Partner, King & Spalding; Justin Parks, Vice President, AB Data; Amy Gernon, Founder, Gernon Law; and Michael O'Connor, Senior Vice President, Western Alliance Bank, will discuss the complexities of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) and tax implications in class actions; analyze strategies for maximizing benefits, minimizing tax liabilities, and ensuring compliance; and navigate through legal nuances, financial considerations, and practical insights for attorneys, plaintiffs, and stakeholders. (D) The Double-Edged Sword: TCPA and Email Restrictions in Case Notifications Christopher Longley (Moderator), Co-Founder & CEO, Atticus Administration; Christopher Roberts, Partner, Butsch Roberts & Associates; Jessica Ranucci, Attorney, New York Legal Assistance Group; and Bryn Bridley, Director of Project Management at Atticus, will examine the intricate balance between TCPA regulations and email restrictions in case notifications; navigate through legal pitfalls, compliance challenges, and best practices for effective communication; and explore strategies for optimizing outreach while mitigating risks and respecting recipients' privacy rights. (E) Luncheon Roundtable Discussion: Resolution of Mass Tort Claims in Bankruptcy Join esteemed judges -- Hon. Michael Kaplan, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, District of New Jersey; the Hon. Shelley Chapman (Ret.), Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; and the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.), Partner, Otterbourg P.C. -- for an intimate roundtable on resolving mass tort claims in bankruptcy as they delve into legal intricacies, precedents, and ethical considerations shaping outcomes; and explore strategies for balancing creditor rights, public interests, and equitable distribution, fostering dialogue and insights over a luncheon setting. Chad Husnick, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, moderates. (F) Comparative Class Action Funding: a Multi-Jurisdictional Examination Dai Wai Chin Freman (Moderator), Managing Director, Parabellum Capital; Kyle Taylor, Partner, Orr Taylor; Luke Streatfeild, Partner, Hausfeld; Michael Dell'Angelo, Executive Shareholder, Berger Montague; and Manuel "John" Dominguez, Partner, Cohen Milstein, discuss different class actions funding models, exploring the benefits and drawbacks of various models, as well as explore whether the US model is ripe for disruption. (G) Fraud in Class Actions Ross Weiner (Moderator), Legal Director, Certum Group; Rebecca Gilliland, Principal, Beasley Allen; Kyle Mason, Director, EisnerAmper; Franco Corrado, Partner, Morgan Lewis; Jeff Wilkerson, Partner, Winston & Strawn; and Etia Rottman Frand, Head of Sales, Darrow, tackle the complexities of detecting and addressing fraud in class actions; explore case studies, legal precedents, and emerging trends; discuss strategies for safeguarding integrity, ensuring fair outcomes, and upholding justice within class action litigation; and delve into ethical considerations and practical measures for combating fraudulent practices. (H) ESG Litigation From A Securities Perspective Eric Zagar (Moderator), Partner, Kessler Topaz; Lauren Wagner, Counsel, O'Melveny; and Minor Myers, Professor of Law, UConn Law School, dive into the intersection of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors with securities litigation; explore evolving regulations, shareholder activism, and fiduciary duties; and dissect recent cases, analyze market trends, and propose strategies for navigating ESG-related risks and opportunities within the securities landscape. (I) The Revolution of Lead Generation in Mass Tort With Cutting Edge AI and Marketing Tools Erin Mulvaney (Moderator), Reporter, The Wall Street Journal; Brendan Kane, Founder, Hook Point; Rustin Silverstein, President and Founder, X Ante; and Christopher Ege, Partner, Gordon, Rees, Scully, Mansukhani, explore the transformative impact of AI and marketing tools on mass tort lead generation; discuss data-driven strategies, predictive analytics and ethical considerations; and how innovative technologies are reshaping legal marketing, enhancing client acquisition, and revolutionizing mass tort litigation. CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on May 6th. To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action industry for this one-day event. Conference agenda is subject to change. Additional panels and speakers will be added leading up to the conference. Check back frequently for updates! For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com ********* 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 ***