/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240426.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 85 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 19, 2025 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Dismisses Baby Formula Shortage Suit ACCORDIA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Schmidt Due Dec. 2 ALM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Alleges ALPHA METALLURGICAL: Faces Class Suit for Unfair Labor Practices ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Fraudulent AI Claims AMAZON.COM INC: Stephenson Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices ANNE ALLEN: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Medina Suit ARISE VIRTUAL: De Niro Seeks Conditional Class Certification AST SPACEMOBILE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Investors AT&T MOBILITY: Unruh Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info AVIVA GENERAL: Supreme Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification BEMUS LANDSCAPE: Ramirez Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Violations BIOGEN INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in OFPRS Suit Due May 10 BNY MELLON: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Walden BRIGHT HEART: Discloses Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Says BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse by Jail Guard C. PFEIFFER: Court Junks Estrada's Bid for Class Certification CARECENTRIX INC: Jones Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective CASTING NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over Pay-For-Play Model CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Bid to File Material Under Seal Nixed CEREBRAL INC: Court Enters Order on Bids for Class Certification CG-HHC INC: Court OK's Settlement in Williams Suit CI&T INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Waldrop Sues Over Deceptive Drink Sizes CITY OF HOPE: De Lapaz Seeks Damages for Data Security Failure CITY OF HOPE: Faces Krause Suit Over Alleged Data Breach CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ridley Suit Alleges CITY OF HOPE: Julian Sues Over Unsecured Patients' Information CITY OF HOPE: Lopez Sues Over Alleged Privacy Data Breach CITY OF HOPE: Saurenmann Sues Over Alleged Data Breach CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Asbestos Hazard CLIPPER REALTY: Must Produce Discovery in Sanchez Suit COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Reaches $2M Settlement in ERISA Class Action CONNECTWISE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence/Data Breach CONTINENTAL AG: Anderson Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly CORELOGIC CREDCO: Settles FCRA Class Action Suit for $5.695M COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Agrees to Settle Malpractice Suit for $25-Mil. COVANTA DADE: Brashevitzky Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bid to File Second Amended Complaint Tossed CSI ELECTRICAL: Court Addresses Compensable Time at Checkpoints CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Shongho Gets Initial Nod DAIFUKU SERVICES: Court Recommends Denial of Shaw's Class Cert Bid DEL MONTE: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Diced Peaches' False Ads DEVON ENERGY: Class Action Settlement in Wright Gets Initial Nod DIPSON THEATRES: Murphy Balks at Movie Tickets' Hidden Service Fees DIVIDEND FINANCE: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Fraud DIXON ADVISORY: Court Approves $16MM Class Action Settlement DOXIMITY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Claims E&E CO: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 28, 2025 EQUITABLE ADVISORS: Newbury Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA FANTASIA TRADING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Safety Defect With eTorque System FCTI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Durkee Due June 10, 2024 FLORIDA: Wallace Complaint Dismissed for Failure to State Claim FROEDTERT HEALTH: Lutz Seeks Conditional Class Certification GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid GENIUS BRANDS: 9th Circuit Court Reverses Class Suit Dismissal GLOBE LIFE: Misleads Business Information, Class Suit Says GROUP HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 17, 2024 HEAVENLY HAVEN: Scott Sues Over Below Minimum and Unpaid OT Wages HOME POINT: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement HYATT CORPORATION: Court Certifies Class in Granados Suit ICHIMI USA: Takahashi Seeks Unpaid Wages, PAGA Penalties ILLINOIS: Illegally Seizes Property Value From Taxpayers, Suit Says INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FL: To Reform Opioid Class Settlement Funds INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bowman Says JACK HULLAND: Court Orders Release of Student Info in Class Action JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Take Aim on Welfare Plan Fiduciaries KAYAK SOFTWARE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says KENVUE INC: Band Aid Products Contains PFAS Substances KIA AMERICA: Vaughn Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of Drivers' Data LEADSMARKET.COM: Faces New TCPA Class Action Lawsuit LEMONADE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing LEPRINO FOODS: Faces Simmons Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Improper Foreclosure of Property LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System MARK CUBAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal MASSACHUSETTS: OKs $1-B Deal for Community-Based Nursing Homes MEDDATA LLC: Settles Class Action for $7MM Over GitHub Data Breach METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Court Certifies Class in Paulino-Santos Suit MONTANA: Faces Class Action Over Refusal to Update Sex Designation MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Ovando Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces D.P & F.C. Disability Discrimination Suit NEW YORK, NY: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing NIO INC: Discovery Ongoing on Consolidated Securities Suit NORLITE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 1, 2025 NORTH BROTHERS: Fraud Suit Dismissed, Arbitration Agreement Upheld NORTH CAROLINA: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid NOVA HOME: Savinova Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert Bid OKLAHOMA: Court Strike Gunter's Bid to Certify Class OPTILINE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Astu Alleges ORRICK & HERRINGTON: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Settlement OWEN FARICY: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Taylor Suit Alleges PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Continued to June 3 PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gay Continued to June 3 PANERA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Grain Bagel Flats PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 17, 2025 PATINA ORLANDO: Plaintiffs Must Move for Class Cert Bid by June 14 PATINA ORLANDO: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert. Briefing PERION NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 17 PERION NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Investors PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price Fixing POLISH ON PEARL: Seek to Stay Class Cert Bid Briefing, Ruling PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Tobin Suit R&G BRENNER: Cinar Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge RESONETICS LLC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Jurdi Data Privacy Suit RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Misleads Investors, Class Action Suit Says ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tolbert Bid for Class Cert. Terminated RTX CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks to Seal Class Certification Reply RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Suit Seeks Class Status SAINT LUKE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Sterilization Procedures SCOTT SEMPLE: Request to Submit Further Docs in Vega Tossed SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Barrera Suit SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Davis Suit SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Hendricks Suit SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Rueda Suit SHARECARE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Suit Over Unethical Corporate Practices SLEDGE INC: Larsen Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline SOUTHSTATE BANK: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines SPORTSMAN’S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Class Suit in Delaware SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in McFadden Suit Gets Initial Nod TAMKO BUILDING: Scheduling Conference in Snyder Reset for May 6 TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Halley Due May 29 TOWANDA COMMUNITY: Filing for Discovery Plan Due May 14 TWITTER INC: Fact Discovery Deadline in Adler Reset to June 10 UNILEVER PLC: Agrees to Settle Suave Benzene Class Suit for $2MM UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19 UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Discrimination Against Black-Farmers UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ninth Circuit Revives Putative Class Action UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Ozorio Wage & Hour Suit VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Employees Seeks Class Action Over Unpaid Wages VIEW INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Misstated Financial Results VIEW INC: Court Tosses Mehedi Suit WALGREEN CO: Seeks to Seal Certain Portions of Materials WALMART INC: Acne Treatment Drugs Contain Benzene, Sanderlin Says WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set June 14 WILLIAMS & CO: Court Certifies Property Schemes Advice Class Suit WOLTER INC: Mayberry Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages WOODSTREAM CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Maroney Due June 25 XCEL ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Smokehouse Creek Fire XTO ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025 ZALKIN LAW: Deats Loses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement [*] Quebec Court Approves Class Action Against 16 Opioid Makers Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Ordered to Pay $4MM in Damages ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J and Kenvue To Pay $45MM in Talc Lawsuit ********* 3M COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 19, 2025 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE UTILITIES BOARD OF TUSKEGEE, v. 3M COMPANY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00420-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR. entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- A pretrial conference is scheduled for: April 30, 2026 -- Jury selection and trial during the term June 22, 2026 of court commencing on: -- The deadline to amend pleadings expired April 15, 2024 prior to the entry of this order and are not extended, however, a motion to add parties, if any, shall be filed by the parties on or before: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Feb. 19, 2025 certification and class certification expert declaration shall be filed on or before: -- Deposition of Plaintiff's class certification May 20, 2025 experts shall be completed on or before: -- Defendants opposition to Plaintiff's class June 3, 2025 certification motion and Defendants' class certification expert declarations shall be filed on or before: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of class shall July 6, 2025 be filed on or before: -- All discovery issues as to class certification Jan. 20, 2025 shall be completed on or before: -- All other fact discovery shall be conducted Dec. 1, 2025 on or before: 3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dIuhg at no extra charge.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Dismisses Baby Formula Shortage Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge last week dismissed a class action suit accusing Abbott Labs of unjust enrichment resulting from its baby formula recall and production shutdown. Filed on behalf of people who bought Similac, Alimentum or EleCare infant formula during the past three years, the complaint alleged the North Chicago-based corporation illegally profited off the temporary shuttering of its Sturgis, Michigan, facility in February 2022. The plant was closed for months after the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall for several brands of powdered formula during an investigation into contamination by the harmful Cronobacter sakazakii bacteria. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly ruled on April 10 that the attorneys for the California, Ohio and Utah residents named as a plaintiffs in the case had failed to state a claim. "The plaintiffs argue that Abbott's retention is unjust because its own misconduct led to the shutdown of the Sturgis facility, the formula shortage, and related price increases," Kennelly said. With the Michigan formula plant responsible for 20 percent of the nation's production, during the shutdown Abbott was operating with its capacity reduced by 40 percent. "Even accepting the facts as alleged and drawing inferences in the plaintiffs' favor, this contention cannot survive a motion to dismiss," he said. "Specifically, even if one assumes that the plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Abbott by paying increased prices for its products during the shortage, they have not plausibly alleged that Abbott's retention of that benefit is unjust under the circumstances." None of the people suing Abbott alleged that they were harmed by the products they purchased. Rather, the plaintiffs claimed that Abbott had some kind of obligation to maintain certain levels of infant formula production or make sure its price remained stable. "The plaintiffs' generalized allegations on this point are insufficient to satisfy the 'enrichment' component of unjust enrichment, even if the plaintiffs could satisfy the 'unjust' component," the judge said, in a 10-page order. But they cannot, Kennelly ruled, "as they have not plausibly alleged that Abbott was under any obligation to them to continue producing formula, maintain a particular supply level, or keep prices down." Kennelly set a May 3 deadline to amend the complaint with "at least one viable claim" before closing the door on the allegations for good. [GN] ACCORDIA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Schmidt Due Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SCHMIDT, Individually and on behalf of the Class, v. ACCORDIA LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01923-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Bernard Skomal entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline as follows: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed on or before May 17, 2024. 2. All pre-class certification fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by Nov. 1, 2024. 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by December 2, 2024. 4. By Jan. 16, 2025, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by Jan. 30, 2025. 6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by Feb. 28, 2025. 7. Any motion for class certification must be filed no later than Dec. 2, 2024. Accordia is a financial services company focused on the annuity and life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dD1Dv0 at no extra charge.[CC] ALM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BAKER; and ASHLEY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALM RESTAURANTS DETROIT, LLC; ALM RESTAURANTS, LLC; ALM RESTAURANTS QOF, LLC; ALM RESTAURANTS QOZB, LLC; ALM RESTAURANTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY; and YUSEF ALCODRAY, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-10909-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 9, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as crew members. ALM RESTAURANTS DETROIT operates McDonald's restaurants in southeast Detroit. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. Elana H. Gloetzner, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 739-1953 Facsimile: (248) 739-1978 Email: etereziu@forthepeople.com elana.gloetzner@forthepeople.com ALPHA METALLURGICAL: Faces Class Suit for Unfair Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against several mining companies alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations. Andrew Tolliver named Alpha Metallurgical Resources, Marfork Coal Company, Spartan Coal Company, Aracoma Coal Company and Paramont Contura as defendants in the suit. Tolliver claims that he and other coal miners were not fairly compensated for all the time they worked, particularly at the beginning and end of their shifts, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Tolliver claims this includes time spent donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) required safety clothing and equipment necessary for their coal mining duties. Tolliver alleges that the defendants are a single integrated enterprise and/or joint employers of him and other similar employees as defined by the FLSA. Tolliver points out several factors to support this, such as AMR being registered as the "Controller" of mines operated by its affiliates, having interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management and financial control, according to the suit. The plaintiff contends that the defendants had control over the terms and conditions of employment, including hiring and firing, work schedules, pay rates and maintaining employee records. Tolliver claims that because the work performed by him and others directly benefited the defendants' business and furthered their joint interests, the Defendants should be considered joint employers under the FLSA. The lawsuit highlights the policies around donning and doffing safety clothing and equipment, as well as gathering tools and equipment before and after shifts, according to the suit. The plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to wear safety clothing, helmets, boots and gather tools like gas detectors and radios, the complaint states. Tolliver claims these tasks were considered integral and indispensable to their work as underground coal miners. The plaintiff alleges that within the last three years, they were not paid for the time spent donning and doffing safety clothing and equipment, as well as obtaining and returning tools and equipment before and after shifts. Despite the ease of recording this time with the defendants' time clock, they chose not to do so, according to the suit. Tolliver claims this resulted in the plaintiff and others regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek without proper compensation, including overtime pay. Tolliver claims the defendants knowingly and willfully violated the FLSA by not compensating employees for essential work-related tasks, leading to unpaid wages and overtime. "Defendants' practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for time they spent donning and doffing safety clothing and other protective equipment, obtaining and putting away their tools and equipment, and for the associated travel, resulted in Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA . . . " the complaint states. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation for the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Tolliver is represented by R. Booth Goodwin II, Benjamin B. Ware, W. Jeffrey Vollmer and Stephanie H. Daly of Goodwin & Goodwin in Charleston. Attorneys for the plaintiff declined to comment on the litigation. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number: 2:24-cv-00128 [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Fraudulent AI Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Moss, writing for Repairer Drive News, reports that fraudulent AI claims are inundating class action lawsuits and raising the costs for all parties involved, according to multiple legal trade publications. A recent class-action settlement involving Altria over Juul products has become a recent example of how fraudulent AI claims are creating chaos in the courtroom. Last month during a settlement hearing, plaintiff attorneys told a judge they had received 14.4 million claims in the case, about five times what was expected, according to a Law.com article. "The innovation appears to be endless," Law.com says Dena Sharp, co-lead plaintiffs counsel said at the hearing. "It’s likely a combination of a relatively small number of bad actors using the force multipliers of AI and everything the internet has to offer." Sharp estimated 20% or 2 million of the claims to be valid, according to the Law.com article. The lawsuit alleges Juul used deceptive marketing behavior regarding the amount of nicotine inside pre-filled pods. The judge agreed on the $45.5 million settlement along with giving attorneys more time to investigate the fraudulent claims before sending payments to claimants, the article says. According to the article, lawyers from both sides of the litigation spent between $8.55 million and $9.66 million addressing fraudulent claims for the recent settlement and an unrelated settlement with Juul Labs late last year. The trade publication also reported on issues with fraudulent claims filed in a Chicco KidFit booster lawsuit last year. The suit claimed Artsana USA falsely marketed the booster seats as safe for kids less than 30 pounds. The company sold about 875,000 of the booster seat but more than double the amount of claims were filed in the case, Law.com says. It was estimated 99% of the claims were fraudulent. PropertyCasualty360 published a commentary on the issue earlier this week written by Bryan Heller, co-founder and chief product officer of ClaimScore. The startup also announced Wednesday $3 million in seed funding for an AI real-time claim validation software. Heller says in his commentary that the consequences of AI fraudulent claims is far-reaching. "It strains the resources allocated for the settlement, delaying payouts to legitimate claimants," the commentary says. "Additionally, it dilutes the overall settlement fund, potentially reducing the compensation that each legitimate claimant receives." The commentary also explores the cost to both legal parties faced with fraudulent claims. "Validating millions of claims against a backdrop of fraudulent submissions is a mammoth task," the article says. "This process requires significant legal resources, driving up costs for both plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs face longer wait times for their rightful compensation, while defendants are burdened with mounting legal fees and the uncertainty of a protracted settlement." Heller said the legal system needs a multi-pronged approach to combatting fraudulent claims that includes: Early AI-powered intervention that catches claims at the start of a claims period. Continual monitoring of claim detection systems to ensure the methodology is staying ahead of adapting tactics used by fraudsters. Collaboration between claims administrators, law firms and technology partners Transparency throughout the claims process including details of why a claim has been determined legitimate or fraudulent. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Stephenson Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW STEPHENSON, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV434301 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 2, 2024) is a class action complaint challenging Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by: (a) failing to pay earned, but unused Paid Personal Time upon separation of employment; (b) failing to pay all vested Vacation Wages (defined as including but not limited to vacation time, personal days, flexible days, paid time off, PTO, paid personal time, and other paid time off) to separating employees at the final rate of pay, and/or applicable regular rate of pay; and (c) engaging in unfair business practices. Plaintiff Stephenson was employed by Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee at an Amazon fulfillment center from approximately January 25, 2022, to July 12, 2022. Amazon.com Inc. doing business as Amazon, is an American multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and - Cody R. Kennedy, Esq. Tatiana Avakian, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Peter M. Hart, Esq. Ashlie E. Fox, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 525 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 439-9298 Facsimile: (509) 561-6441 E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com ashlie.fox.loph@gmail.com ANNE ALLEN: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Medina Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN HEPIKITA MEDINA, et al., v. THE HON. ANNE MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, et al., in their official capacities, Case No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Paul Kohler entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Motion for Class Certification: a. The Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' amended motion for Class Certification no later than May 10, 2024. b. The Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of their amended motion for Class Certification shall be due May 31, 2024. 2. Response to Complaint: a. The Defendants shall file a response to the Second Amended Complaint no later than 30 days after the Court rules upon the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. 3. Trial and Trial Preparation The parties are ordered to meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) within 14 days of the Court's ruling upon Defendants' amended motion for Class Certification to discuss what discovery is needed and to propose a second amended scheduling order to the Court. On March 8, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its Order and Judgment in this case in which it "vacate[d] the district court's merits rulings, and remand[ed] for the district court to consider class certification and for further proceedings as required." The Court determined that in "the absence of certification, the district court was not presented a live case or controversy as to the merits of the claims; instead, it retained jurisdiction only over the certification motion." The Plaintiffs initially filed a Motion to Certify Class on Oct. 4, 2021. Amended Motion was filed on Oct. 5, 2021. That motion was put on hold pending Defendants' motion to dismiss, A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G7cKuK at no extra charge.[CC] ARISE VIRTUAL: De Niro Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIAVION DE NIRO, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00695-APG-EJY (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) Directing that Notice be issued to all Customer Support Professionals (CSPs) who have worked at Arise during the last three years and were classified as independent contractors by first class mail, e-mail, and text; and (3) Directing that Arise produce a list of the names, last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers for all individuals who currently work and/or previously worked at Arise as customer support professionals at any time in the last three years and were classified as independent contractors. The Plaintiff has brought this collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals who have worked as CSPs at Arise, seeking to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff asserts that she and other CSPs working for Arise were all subject to the same rules and policies and were misclassified as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees of Arise as a matter of economic reality, and thus subject to the protections of the FLSA. The Defendant is a customer service call center company that contracts with thousands of customer service agents working out of their homes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aonfeq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com - and - Kristina L. Hillman, Esq. Sean W. Mcdonald, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 3199 E. Warm Springs Rd, Ste 400 Las Vegas, NV 89120 Telephone: (702) 508-9282 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-mail: nevadacourtnotices@unioncounsel.net khillman@unioncounsel.net smcdonald@unioncounsel.net AST SPACEMOBILE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AST SpaceMobile, Inc. ("SpaceMobile" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ASTS). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) production of the Company's five Block 1 BlueBird satellites had been negatively impacted by two suppliers of key subsystems; (2) as a result, the Company had not substantially completed the production of the Block 1 BlueBird satellites; and (3) as a result, the Company's five Block 1 BlueBird satellites were not on track to launch in the first quarter of 2024. If you bought SpaceMobile shares November 14, 2023 and April 1, 2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/spacemobile/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is June 17, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] AT&T MOBILITY: Unruh Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN UNRUH and CHRISTOPHER ISBELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC and AT&T, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01414-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 2, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to safeguard and protect Plaintiffs' and Class members' personal Identifiable Information, which was compromised as a result of a data breach. Nearly three years ago, AT&T learned that a well-known threat actor claimed to be selling a database containing the personal information of over 70 million AT&T customers. But instead of investigating the source and cause of the massive breach, AT&T denied the allegations, ignored the issue, and continued with operations. Almost three years later, the same customer data from 2021 is no longer just for sale; it has been fully exposed on the Dark Web. And after years of denial, AT&T has changed its tune. AT&T finally admitted that approximately 73 million former and current AT&T customers' personal and sensitive information was released onto the Dark Web. According to AT&T, customers' impacted information included a combination of their "full name, email address, mailing address, phone number, social security number, date of birth, and AT&T account number and passcode," which AT&T collected as a condition for use of its services. As a result of AT&T's failure to protect the PII it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiffs and class members now face a significant risk of identity theft and fraud, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud now and into the indefinite future, the suit asserts. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, also known as AT&T Wireless, and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American telecommunications company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roy E. Barnes, Esq. J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Stefon J. David, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com david@stuevesiegel.com - and - Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and - Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4651 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com AVIVA GENERAL: Supreme Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that in a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ruled against certifying a class action involving individuals affected by Aviva General Insurance Company's policy change. The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract, among other allegations, arguing that the insurer improperly handled travel expense reimbursements for insured individuals following motor vehicle accidents. The dispute centred on Aviva's 2018 policy modification, which introduced a 25-kilometre deductible for reimbursement of travel expenses to medical appointments under Section B Accident Benefits. This policy affected claims where the round-trip travel did not exceed 25 kilometers, thereby denying reimbursement for such travel. Adam Crotty and Shawn Coleman, who sought to be appointed as representative plaintiffs, experienced personal injuries from separate accidents and were recipients of Section B Accident Benefits. However, their claims for travel expense reimbursements were denied under the new deductible policy, prompting the class action application under the Class Actions Act, with the aim to include various affected parties across multiple Canadian provinces. The Supreme Court reviewed the application based on criteria outlined in the Class Actions Act, which requires clear definitions of a class, the presence of common issues among class members, and that a class action must represent a preferable procedure for resolving the issues at hand. The court acknowledged that while the insurance company altered its reimbursement policy, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that this change contravened existing insurance agreements or required regulatory approvals. The court emphasized that the term "reasonable expenses" within the policies did not specifically guarantee coverage for all travel expenses, which inherently allows the insurer some discretion in determining which expenses to cover. The court also highlighted that the pleadings failed to demonstrate a cause of action or outline substantial common issues affecting potential class members, which are critical in certifying a class action. Furthermore, the application did not sufficiently argue that a class action would be the preferable procedure to address the claims compared to individual claims or regulatory intervention. As a result of these findings, the court declined to certify the class action, stating that the plaintiffs did not meet the necessary legal thresholds for such a certification. [GN] BEMUS LANDSCAPE: Ramirez Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADOLFO LOZOYA RAMIREZ, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of himself and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. BEMUS LANDSCAPE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08944 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2024) seeks damages as well as civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act over Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Bemus Landscape, Inc. as an hourly, non-exempt employee from in or around September 2023 to on or around January 19, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment, Defendant committed multiple violations of the California Labor Code, including, among others, failure to properly pay all wages, including minimum, regular, overtime, and double-time wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon separation, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff now seeks to recover civil penalties under PAGA and related relief through this representative action. Based in San Clemente, CA, Bemus Landscape, Inc. provides full service landscape management and tree care services throughout Southern California. [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 BIOGEN INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in OFPRS Suit Due May 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, ALFRED SANDROCK, AND ALISHA ALAIMO, Case No. 1:22-cv-10200-WGY (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge William Young entered class certification management order as follows: Event Date Class Certification Plaintiffs Motion: May 10,2024 Defendants' Opposition: June 21,2024 Plaintiffs Reply: July 19,2024 Completion of Merits Discovery: Oct. 11,2024 Expert reports and discovery Opening Expert Reports Exchanged: Oct. 25,2024 Rebuttal Expert Reports Exchanged: Nov. 15,2024 Complete Expert Discovery: Dec. 20,2024 Dispositive Motions Motions: Jan. 2,2025 Oppositions: Jan. 30,2025 Replies: Feb. 13,2025 Ready for Trial: April 1, 2025 Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company, specializing in the discovery, development, and delivery of therapies for the treatment of neurological diseases. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lfB3m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Michael D. Gaines, Esq. Brendan Jarboe, Esq. Nathan J. Abelman, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com jake@blockleviton.com michael@blockleviton.com brendan@blockleviton.com nathan@blockleviton.com The Defendants are represented by: James R. Carroll, Esq. Michael S. Hines, Esq. Yaw A. Anim, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 573-4800 E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com michael.hines@skadden.com yaw.anim@skadden.com BNY MELLON: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Walden ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered an order granting in part, deferring in part, and denying in part BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment. Specifically, BNY Mellon's motion is granted as to the Waldens' breach of contract claim that BNY Mellon breached the Agreements by investing in securities of BNY Corp. and granted as to the Waldens' breach of contract claim that BNY Mellon breached the Agreements by failing to make individualized assessments of the Waldens' financial needs. The Court will defer ruling on BNY Mellon's motion in part on the issue of whether the Waldens are entitled to disgorgement of fees for supplemental briefing to be submitted consistent with the following Order. BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment is denied in all other respects. This putative class action was initiated in this Court on December 21, 2020 by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, against the Defendants. The Waldens generally assert breach of contract claims and claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") in connection with investment management services BNY Mellon provided to the Waldens under investment management agreements. Presently before the Court is a pre-class certification motion for summary judgment by BNY Mellon. Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are not in dispute. The Waldens bring this putative class action against BNY Mellon for a breach of contract and UTPCPL violations for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest for BNY Mellon's investment of their assets into affiliated mutual funds. Bank of New York Mellon is an American banking and financial services corporation. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jt1WrW at no extra charge.[CC] BRIGHT HEART: Discloses Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- S. N., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT HEART HEALTH, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HEART HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02112 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2024) is an action arising from the Defendant's systematic violation of the medical privacy rights of its patients via exposing their highly sensitive personal information without those patients' knowledge or consent, by Defendant's use of various third-party tracking and collection tools. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to users of the Defendant's Website, the Defendant installed and implemented "pixels" and similar tracking technologies on the Website to acquire and disclose the highly valuable Private Information of their users, customers, and patients to third parties such as Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook ("Meta" or "Facebook") and Google LLC ("Google"). The Defendant has disregarded the privacy rights of its patients who used its Web Properties ("Users" or "Class Members") by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Users' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") was safeguarded. Instead, Defendant allowed unauthorized third parties such as Facebook and Google to intercept the content of its Users' communications on Defendant's Web Properties with the consent of the Plaintiff, says the suit. BRIGHT HEART HEALTH, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HEART HEALTH provides online treatment for eating disorders from licensed therapists, psychologists, dietitians and psychiatrists. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95608 Telephone: (916) 616-2936 Email: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq. Jason Rathod, Esq. Bryan G. Faubus, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com bfaubus@classlawdc.com BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UMB Bank, N.A. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-04897-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an order temporarily granting the motion to seal. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. To the extent that UMB or any third party believes that the materials should be unsealed sooner, it shall file a letter motion, not to exceed three pages, seeking such relief. The Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS") request that the Court enter an order to maintain under seal, until 14 days after the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment, the confidential merits discovery material cited or quoted by plaintiff UMB Bank, N.A. ("UMB") in its opposition to BMS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In their submissions, both parties have cited or discussed discovery materials designated confidential under the Stipulation and Order Governing Confidentiality of Discovery Materials and Preservation of Privilege that was entered on Aug. 9, 2022 The Court therefore should maintain a sealing order with respect to these materials until there is an "adjudication," such as a motion or motions for summary judgment, for which they are actually relevant. Bristol-Myers is an American multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upTE0G at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John J. Clarke, Jr., Esq. DLA Piper LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 Facsimile: (212) 335.4501 E-mail: john.clarke@us.dlapiper.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse by Jail Guard ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Fumano, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses the B.C. government of negligence for allegedly allowing a provincial jail guard to sexually assault more than 200 young inmates over 21 years. Hundreds of former inmates have previously accused retired jail guard Roderic David MacDougall of sexual abuse, in criminal court and in dozens of civil lawsuits. The new proposed class action claims allege the violation of the victims' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Karim Ramji, the North Vancouver-based lawyer behind the new claim, has previously filed other lawsuits against MacDougall and the provincial government. Some of those cases are still proceeding through the courts slowly. One lawsuit, filed by Ramji in 2014 on behalf of two alleged victims, is set for trial this fall. "That one case has taken 10 years -- you can imagine all the other cases," Ramji said. In 2019, Ramji filed a lawsuit on behalf of 61 men who had outstanding civil claims at that time. That lawsuit, which described MacDougall as "one of Canada's most prolific sexual offenders, with more than 200 former inmates who have already come forward," was a type of litigation known as a representative action. That action has effectively been on hold for years, and Ramji said it will now be discontinued so he can focus on the class action. This new class action will provide "a more efficient format" for the matter to proceed on behalf of any victims whose claims have not yet been resolved or for any victims who may not have come forward previously, Ramji said: "This is about access to justice." MacDougall worked as a corrections officer at four different B.C. jails between 1976 and 1997, with most of his time at Oakalla Prison in Burnaby. He was first criminally charged in 1998, the year after he quit his job. Dozens of claims have been filed against MacDougall and the province since 2002 that have not been adjudicated upon by the courts or settled, the new claim says, and the proposed class action could include any of those unresolved claims as well as any other possible victims who never previously came forward. The new pleading alleges breaches of the victims' constitutionally protected Charter right to "life, liberty and the security of person," as well as their right to not be subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment." The victims' Charter rights were violated not only by MacDougall's sexual assaults, but also by the province for its "systemic negligence" allowing the abuse to occur over so many years, the claim alleges. In the lawsuit Ramji filed in 2014, lawyers representing the Province of B.C. argued the plaintiffs should not be able to seek damages under the Charter, and the court agreed. The availability of Charter damages for these men is the "key issue" in this case, Ramji said: "Jails are not Charter-free zones." MacDougall is believed to be in his early 70s and living in the Lower Mainland. Reached by phone, MacDougall said he was not aware of the newly filed class action and declined to discuss the allegations. "You are not going to get me to comment," MacDougall said. MacDougall did not respond in court to many of the lawsuits filed against him over the years. He did, however, maintain his innocence at a criminal trial in 2022, where he was convicted of sexual assault, indecent assault, and extortion in connection with five teenaged inmates in the 1980s. The new class action will need to be approved by a Supreme Court judge before it can proceed. [GN] C. PFEIFFER: Court Junks Estrada's Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA, v. C. PFEIFFER, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gary Austin entered an order that: 1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action, and 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied. The Court further recommended that the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be denied as prematurely filed. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations – by April 22, 2024, – the Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in a waiver of the right to appeal the district court's order. The Plaintiff's motion must be denied because to date Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint that contains actionable claims against viable defendants. As a result, the motion for a preliminary injunction is premature for lack of personal jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff is not eligible to request preliminary injunction for other inmates as he may only request one for himself. For all these reasons, it will be recommended that the motion be denied. The Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bNSbz3 at no extra charge.[CC] CARECENTRIX INC: Jones Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADEYAH JONES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CARECENTRIX INC., a corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01071-VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective: (2) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names; last known addresses, dates, and location(s) of employment; phone numbers; and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing Plaintiff's proposed form of notice and consent forms (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: All current and former customer service representatives who worked for the Defendant at any time in the past three years (the "FLSA Collective"). (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email and text message sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. The facts and legal authorities in support of this Motion are in the attached Brief in Support, which is incorporated by reference. The Plaintiff that the Defendant failed to incorporate all non-discretionary bonuses in its customer service representatives' "regular rate" of pay when determining their overtime rate; and that the Defendant knowingly suffered or permitted the Plaintiff and the Defendant's other customer service representatives (CSR) to perform unpaid work before and after their scheduled shifts, which resulted in them not being paid for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff Nadeyah Jones worked remotely for the Defendant in Mobile, Alabama as a non-exempt CSR, with the specific job title of Patient Advocate, from November 2022 to June 22, 2023. CareCentrix is a single platform that "connect[s] the last mile of care[] for health plans and health systems." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahwSrq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com - and - Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP 273 State Street No.2 Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 455-1730 E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com CASTING NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over Pay-For-Play Model ------------------------------------------------------------ Winston Cho of The Hollywood Reporter reports that talent listing service Casting Networks is facing a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of exploiting actors by charging them for opportunities to audition for roles. The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, claims the pay-for-play model violates a California law aimed at protecting performers from predatory practices in Hollywood by prohibiting the charging of fees for the submission of headshots, reels or additional audition materials. It alleges that the company illegally "commercialized, gatekept and exerted complete control of the casting process" by tying the ability to pay for auditions with casting opportunities. The filing of the complaint marks renewed scrutiny around pay-to-play auditions. In 2018, the Los Angeles City Attorney's office successfully pursued criminal charges against more than two dozen offenders, mostly a mix of acting workshop owners and casting professionals, accused of staging paid auditions with aspiring actors. The industry significantly contracted after the crackdown, which was initiated following the publication of a 2016 investigation by The Hollywood Reporter. The lawsuit says the industry mostly shifted online serving thousands of subscribers who pay a monthly fee to potentially connect with industry professionals. On its website, Casting Network says it's a software service allowing top casting directors to manage submissions from talent, as well as schedule and share auditions. Performers can submit auditions for roles by subscribing. Casting Networks violates the Fee-Related Talent Services Law, which was passed by California legislators in 2009, by charging actors for employment opportunities, requiring performers to pay a fee for creating audition materials as a condition for using the service and accepting payment for referring talent to people or companies that may charge them additional fees, the lawsuit alleges. Under the "premium" subscription, which costs $29.99 per month, members can enter unlimited role submissions on the website's casting billboard, connect with agents through its scouting service, and upload media of their photographs, audition tapes and other promotional material onto their profiles. "By holding onto media, Defendant can extract higher subscription tiers as artists' storage space is exhausted and they are forced to purchase more," the complaint states. The proposed class brings claims for violations of California laws regulating unfair competition, false advertising and fee-related talent services, among other claims. It seeks to represent California residents who paid for subscriptions in the past four years. "Casting Networks is essentially offering to do for producers what they could not do themselves under the law -- take money in exchange for the honor of auditioning," said Christina Le, a lawyer at the Clarkson Law Firm representing the proposed class, in a statement. "Actors who go out and audition for roles are already giving their labor away for free. Adding a pay-to-play requirement on top runs dangerously close to blatant theft." [GN] CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Bid to File Material Under Seal Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al., v. CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order: -- denying Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal material related to their opposition to the Defendants' motion for leave to file a third-party complaint; and -- granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motions to file under seal material related to their motion for class certification. The motions are granted only as to Exhibits 2, 3, 8, 13, 14, 15, 24, and 25 to the Declaration of Courtney Vasquez in Support of Class Certification, as well as the portions of the Vasquez Declaration, the Declaration of Colin B. Weir, and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification identified by Defendants at ECF No. 157 at 5. By April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file: (1) a public version of their motion for class certification, and all supporting declarations and exhibits, that complies with this order; (2) updated redacted versions of these documents as necessary; and (3) a public unredacted version of their opposition to the Defendants' motion for leave to file third-party complaint and supporting exhibits. When filing exhibits, counsel shall clearly identify the exhibit, including by number where appropriate, in the docket text—e.g., "Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Courtney Vasquez." Once the Plaintiffs re-file their motion for class certification, the Clerk will terminate the version of the motion. Also by April 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall submit another flash drive containing only Exhibits 5, 6, and 7, which were not subject to any sealing motion. This flash drive shall be maintained in the public record. The Plaintiffs previously submitted a flash drive containing Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 24, and 25. Because the Court has sealed Exhibits 14, 15, 24, and 25, the Clerk shall maintain that flash drive under seal. Although entire product formulas are subject to sealing, the Defendants have cited no authority for the proposition that revealing the percentage of a single ingredient, or the results of testing regarding a single ingredient, "might harm [Defendants'] competitive standing." Accordingly, the motions to seal are denied as to the specific amount of avocado in the challenged products, references to that amount, and the persin test results. Central Garden is an innovator, marketer and producer of quality branded products for the lawn & garden and pet supplies markets. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wQc3MH at no extra charge.[CC] CEREBRAL INC: Court Enters Order on Bids for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARAK FEDERMAN, v. CEREBRAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01803-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class Certification: -- Joint Brief The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response. -- Meet and Confer In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. -- Supplemental Memorandum After the joint brief is filed, each party may file a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date. Cerebral provides health care software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JOuDL8 at no extra charge.[CC] CG-HHC INC: Court OK's Settlement in Williams Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CG-HHC, INC. d/b/a CAREGIVER, A STEP UP, Case No. 5:22-cv-01003-SL (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an order approving the parties' joint motion for approval of settlement. The claims in plaintiffs' complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and this case is closed. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action to enforce the terms of the settlement. The Court finds that the divergent views of the facts and the law presented a bona fide dispute that, had the parties not reached settlement, would have necessitated resolution by the Court and/or a jury. The parties' motion confirms the same. In particular, the parties disagreed about whether CG-HHC failed to pay its hourly, non-exempt employees all of the overtime to which they were entitled. Having reviewed the terms of the settlement, the Court finds that the settlement represents a fair and reasonable resolution to the bona fide dispute. On June 9, 2022, the Plaintiff Williams filed this action, alleging that the Defendant violated the FLSA and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act by failing to pay him and others similarly situated for all the overtime compensation to which they were entitled. On Oct. 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint proposed stipulation to class certification and notice, which the Court approved on October 17, 2022. On Feb. 9, 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement, and on March 19, 2024, they filed the instant motion for approval of the settlement agreement. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nM9cHm at no extra charge.[CC] CI&T INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of CI&T Inc (NYSE: CINT) resulting from allegations that CI&T may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased CI&T securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23854 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 7, 2024, before the market opened, CI&T issued a press release entitled "Restatement of Previously Issued Financial Statements." It stated, in pertinent part, that CI&T had concluded that "(i) the Company's audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022, included in its annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2022 filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 28, 2023, and (ii) the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements as of and for the periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023 and September 30, 2023, each previously furnished to the SEC on a current report on Form 6-K, should no longer be relied upon (collectively, the "Non-Reliance Periods")." On this news, the price of CI&T stock fell $0.48 per share, or 10.78%, on March 7, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Waldrop Sues Over Deceptive Drink Sizes ---------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Osborne, writing for WFAA, reports that a North Texas movie-goer is suing Plano-based Cinemark, claiming the theater company is shorting customers on drink sizes. The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Sherman on April 17, 2024, according to court records. Shane Waldrop, who filed the lawsuit, claims that Cinemark is selling drinks in containers that are labeled as 24 ounces but that the containers only hold 22 ounces. WFAA reached out to Cinemark officials for comment but has not yet heard back. Waldrop, who is claiming he has been "financially injured" by the alleged drink shortage, said in the lawsuit that he was at the Cinemark Tinseltown theater in Grapevine when he bought a 24-ounce draft beer for $8.80, which came out to $9.53 after tax. The drink container was labeled as 24 ounces. But Waldrop, the lawsuit said, thought the container wasn't large enough to hold 24 ounces. So he took the empty container from the theater and measured how much liquid it could hold. The lawsuit said Waldrop found that the container could only hold 22 ounces. Waldrop claims Cinemark is misleading customers and inducing them to buy the 24-ounce drinks "at a premium price," a dollar more than the 20-ounce size. Waldrop's lawsuit alleges violations of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. Waldrop is seeking compensatory damages and for Cinemark to repackage its 24-ounce drinks "with the proper amount of advertised liquid," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit also demands a jury trial over the claims. [GN] CITY OF HOPE: De Lapaz Seeks Damages for Data Security Failure -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA DELAPAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02885 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) seeks damages and relief for Defendant's alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personal identifiable information. The Plaintiff and Class members are current and former patients of Defendant's clinics whose PII was compromised in a data breach which allegedly came about as a result of Defendant's data security failure. The Defendant confirmed that Plaintiff and Class members' personal information was illegally accessed by an unauthorized third party between September 19, 2023 and October 12, 2023. The Defendant became aware of the data breach on or about October 13, 2023 but only began sending notices to affected individuals on April 2, 2024, says the suit. The Plaintiff claims that victims of the data breach have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries and now face a current and ongoing risk of identity theft due to Defendant's actions. Plaintiff accuses Defendant of negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and California law violations. City of Hope is a national cancer institute headquartered in Duarte, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com CITY OF HOPE: Faces Krause Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA KRAUSE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02894 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to adequately protect highly sensitive information entrusted to it by its customers. The Plaintiff's personally identifying information and protected health information was illegally accessed by unauthorized third parties in a cyberattack on Defendant's systems that occurred between September 19, 2023 and October 13, 2023. The Defendant learned of the data breach on October 13, 2023 but only notified Plaintiff on April 6, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach was primarily caused by Defendant's failure to maintain reasonable and appropriate data security for consumers' sensitive personal information. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff and all other individuals affected by the data breach are now at an increased risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment seeking actual and putative damages and other relief. Headquartered in Duarte, CA, City of Hope provides cancer research, treatment and prevention, and other healthcare services to patients throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ridley Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN RIDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02890 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to provide adequate data security measures to the Plaintiff and the Class personally identifiable information and protected health information which resulted to Data Breach. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class entrusted their sensitive PII to the Defendant, but was subsequently exposed in a data breach, which the Defendant first publicly disclosed on December 13, 2024. The Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the PII that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. At least 820,000 patients' information were affected by the Data Breach, in which sensitive personal information was accessed by an unauthorized third party, says the suit. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII and PHI they collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the PII and PHI, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' PII and PHI was exposed to criminals, the suit asserts. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER operates as a medical hospital. The Company focuses on cancer research, and patient treatment of clinical trial, prevention treatment, continuing medical education for life-threatening illnesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 646-5690 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: ek@zlk.com CITY OF HOPE: Julian Sues Over Unsecured Patients' Information -------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY L. JULIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02898 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and equitable relief over Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard its patients' private information. The Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information was compromised in a data breach that allegedly stemmed from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and appropriate data security measures. The Defendant became aware of the data breach on October 13, 2023 but only notified affected patients, including Plaintiff, about the incident approximately six months later, on April 4, 2024. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have suffered concrete injuries and are now at risk of fraud and identity theft due to Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violation of various California laws. City of Hope is a cancer research and treatment organization based in Duarte, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Parker, Jr, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95821 Telephone: (916) 616-2936 E-mail: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com CITY OF HOPE: Lopez Sues Over Alleged Privacy Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:24-cv-02879 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to adequately protect the private information of its customers, resulting in a data breach. The Plaintiff's personally identifiable and protected health information was compromised in a data breach that was allegedly caused by Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to safeguard and protect private information it collects from its customers. Additionally, Defendant failed to provide the complete details of the data breach in its notice letters to affected individuals, says the Plaintiff. As a result of Defendant's alleged negligent conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. City of Hope is a cancer treatment and research center based in Duarte, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 90025 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Billy Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com CITY OF HOPE: Saurenmann Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ LYNSEY SAURENMANN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02860 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients. The Defendant experienced a data breach between September 19, 2023 and October 12, 2023, during which personal identifiable information as well as medical information of its patients, including Plaintiff, were compromised and unlawfully accessed by cyber criminals. The Defendant discovered the data breach on or about October 13, 2023 but only began notifying affected patients on April 2, 2024. The Plaintiff claims that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients’ sensitive information from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. The Plaintiff brings a claim for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Privacy Act, California Customer Records Act, and California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. City of Hope is a cancer research, treatment, and prevention company based in Duarte, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Asbestos Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neutral IT reports that Claire's was hit with a proposed class action on April 10, 2024 in New York federal court, a day after the retail company recalled three of its makeup products, over asbestos presence concerns. The plaintiffs alleged that the recall would not fully compensate for their loss. Two plaintiffs told that the voluntary recall of the products was not fulfilling enough to repay the consumers for their damages and future diagnostic screening. A recent test conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and AMA Analytical Services Inc. indicated the retailer sold cosmetics contaminated with asbestos. The FDA recently found that three samples collected from Claire's and one from another retailer Justice tested positive for asbestos presence. [GN] CLIPPER REALTY: Must Produce Discovery in Sanchez Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order directing the Defendants to produce discovery as to members of the putative class "who are subject to collective bargaining agreements that contain arbitration clauses that would prohibit them from being class members in this action." The Court credits Defendants' assertion that the remaining discovery issues remain amenable to resolution through the standard meet-and-confer process, and hereby orders the Plaintiff to continue to meet and confer with Defendants regarding such issues. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 99. The Court is persuaded that the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery as to the wage and time records of the putative class members, which information is relevant to the questions of "commonality, typicality, numerosity, that the class is identifiable and ascertainable, and that common questions predominate over any individual issues as required by Rule 23." Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d 474, 492 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Clipper acquires, owns, manages, operates and repositions multifamily residential and commercial properties in the New York metropolitan area, with a portfolio in Manhattan and Brooklyn. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=74Q6Ae at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Cohen, Esq. Edward H. Grimmett, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Telephone: (516) 681-1100 E-mail: www.kaufmandolowich.com COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Reaches $2M Settlement in ERISA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Hall Benefits Law, writing for mondaq, reports that Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc., a Georgia company, and a class of some 6,800 retirement plan participants, recently advised a federal district court that they have reached a $2 million settlement in their pending Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case. The parties' joint filing detailed the settlement terms, which would end the plan participants' class action lawsuit in which they accused plan sponsors of losing them millions in retirement funds by charging them excessive administration fees and offering them poor investment choices. Plan participants filed the original suit in February 2021. The case is Goodman et al. v. Columbus Regional Healthcare System Inc., Case number 4:21-cv-00015, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Piedmont Healthcare Inc., an Atlanta-based company, acquired Columbus in May 2019, at which point the retirement plan already had lost about $4.6 million in assets. The plan participants claimed that the plan was full of overpriced, poorly performing funds and excessive fees and expenses. U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land denied the healthcare system's motion to dismiss on January 25, 2022, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hughes et al. v. Northwestern University. In Hughes, the Supreme Court held that an employer may breach its fiduciary duty under ERISA to plan participants even when it provides a range of investment options. In August 2023, the judge granted class certification to all plan participants and beneficiaries who invested in the plan between February 2015 and the plan's termination, overruling the healthcare system's objections to the proposed class as overly broad. The case is scheduled for final settlement approval on June 12, 2024. [GN] CONNECTWISE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence/Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Pastis of Tampa Bay Business Journal reports that one of Tampa's largest tech firms faces a class-action lawsuit alleging the firm's negligence incited a data breach. A Georgia citizen, Mark Marshall, alleges Tampa software service firm ConnectWise and Arizona-based mortgage broker On Q Financial were responsible for leaking the personal information -- Social Security numbers, addresses and names -- of more than 200,000 individuals to the dark web, according to the lawsuit filed on April 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit is uncertified and calls for people affected by the data breach to join as class members. It seeks monetary damages and for the company to implement new practices, according to the complaint. The complaint alleges six counts, including negligence; breach of contract, fiduciary duty and good faith; unjust enrichment; and seeks declaratory judgment, according to the complaint. ConnectWise was a vendor for On Q Financial and provided the broker with software that led to the breach. On Q Financial's networks were breached by a cybercriminal exploiting the tool, resulting in the leaking of individuals' personal information. The data breach was caused by an incident in February that cybersecurity experts described as a cybercrime "Armageddon." At the time, a vulnerability in ConnectWise's popular remote management software tools named ScreenConnect came to light, and cyberattacks proliferated. The lawsuit alleges that cybercriminals now hold the personal information of approximately 200,000 individuals because of the ScreenConnect vulnerability. According to the complaint, these plaintiffs and class members may have experienced "fraudulent misuse" because of the leaked information. ConnectWise said in a statement it did not experience a data breach, intrusion or ransomware event. It did see exploits of the ScreenConnect vulnerability for some customers but said that hackings can "occur through numerous avenues." The people affected by this data breach never received an adequate explanation of the root cause, although both companies distributed notes and statements about the incident, according to the complaint. It also alleges ConnectWise failed to take adequate preventative measures and did not comply with industry standards. The plaintiffs' attorney did not respond to a request for comment. Plaintiff has an uphill climb Patricia Carreiro, a cyber and privacy attorney in Miami and cybersecurity and privacy practice chair for Tampa--based law firm Carlton Fields, said the lawsuit appears standard for the cyber privacy space. It's commonplace for individuals to turn to a vendor like ConnectWise with accusations. It wouldn't be surprising to see a "trickle--down" effect of a number of lawsuits popping up against the companies who use ConnectWise as a vendor, she said. Carreiro points to a 2023 data breach within software file transfer firm MOVEit. After the massive breach, class--action complaints piled up against the vendor, and eventually lawsuits flowed down to companies that used that vendor. "The chain continues, and it can create a domino effect of litigation," Carreiro said. The plaintiffs have an uphill battle to prove a class action and explain the need to bring the lawsuit to court, she said. "What has essentially happened is that [the plaintiff] learned of a breach and they're saying, 'Well, if a breach occurred, then you must have done something wrong,'" Carreiro said. "I have often faced these lawsuits, and what I see is companies that have worked very hard, often putting in a ton of protections, but things still happen. These huge investments that companies often make in cybersecurity do not make a breach impossible." Carreiro also points to a broader trend for the cyber regulatory space as companies and regulators grapple with the punishments against firms that have suffered data breaches. Recently, Florida House Bill No. 473 (H.B. 473), also referred to as the Cybersecurity Incident Liability Act, passed in the state legislature. The bill would provide a safe harbor from lawsuits after a data breach for companies implementing industry--recognized cybersecurity practices. It now is waiting on the governor's signature. [GN] CONTINENTAL AG: Anderson Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN SCA; COMPAGNIE FINANCIÈRE MICHELIN SA; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC.; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00637-SL (N.D. Ohio, April 9, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, beginning from January 1, 2020, through the present, the Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement to artificially increase, maintain, stabilize and fix the prices of replacement tires sold in the Unites Staes for passenger cars, vans, trucks and busses. The Defendants effectuated their price fixing conspiracy by, among other means, signaling price increases during earnings calls and other public statements, implementing revenue management software to facilitate and exchange pricing information, participating in annual industry meetings and coordinating supply reductions to keep prices artificially high. As a direct result of Defendants' conspiracy, the Plaintiff and the Class purchased Tires directly from the Defendants at artificially inflated prices and were thereby directly injured in their business or property, says the suit. CONTINENTAL AG manufactures tires, automotive parts, and industrial products. The Company produces passenger cars, trucks, commercial vehicles, bicycle tires, braking systems, shock absorbers, hoses, drive belts, conveyor belting, transmission products, and sealing systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC 1640 Roundwyck Lane Columbus, OH 43065-8416 Telephone: (440) 452-7100 Email: eric@zagrans.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 222 South 9th Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com CORELOGIC CREDCO: Settles FCRA Class Action Suit for $5.695M ------------------------------------------------------------ ACA International reports that a recent case puts data accuracy in the spotlight, particularly when it comes to erroneous reporting of whether or not a consumer is still alive. In Steinberg v. Corelogic, 2024 WL 1546921 Case No.: 3:22-cv-00498-H-SBC (S.D. Cal. April 9, 2024), a credit reporting agency (CRA) agreed to pay $5.695 million in a class-action lawsuit to resolve claims that it violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by listing consumers as deceased on credit reports when they were actually alive. It did this even after at least one of the three national CRAs (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) provided information that did not include a notation that the consumer was deceased. Background The plaintiff, Marlene Steinberg, alleged that CoreLogic negligently and willfully violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the credit reports it resold regarding the settlement class members. Specifically, she claimed CoreLogic resold inaccurate information from one or more of the nationwide CRAs where the consumer report contained a notation that the consumer was deceased and where either one or two of the CRAs also provided information that did not include a notation that the consumer was deceased. She alleged that CoreLogic made no effort to determine whether the consumer was in fact deceased prior to publishing its consumer report. Steinberg said that she suffered concrete financial and pecuniary harm arising from monetary losses relating to credit denials, loss of use of funds, loss of credit and loan opportunities, out-of-pocket expenses, and other related costs. She also alleged that she suffered concrete harm in the form of financial and dignitary harm arising from the injury to her credit rating and reputation. In 2022, she filed a class-action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against CoreLogic. Just last week, on April 9, the court certified the settlement class. Settlement While CoreLogic didn't admit any wrongdoing, it did agree to a $5.695 million settlement to resolve the lawsuit. CoreLogic is also required to improve its reporting practices to more clearly state that the data it is reporting is precisely the data it received from the CRAs. ACA's Take: The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires data furnishers to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of consumer information provided to a consumer reporting agency. [GN] COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Agrees to Settle Malpractice Suit for $25-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Guardian reports that women who allegedly suffered complications undergoing so-called "one size fits all" breast augmentation surgery in two states could be compensated under a proposed class action settlement. The lawsuit was launched against The Cosmetic Institute in 2017 by patients in New South Wales and Queensland who alleged they suffered distressing complications because of the negligence of the company's surgeons and staff. Those issues included heart problems, punctured lungs and seizures, among other conditions. The long-running case had been scheduled for a lengthy civil hearing to begin in the NSW supreme court, but the parties instead reached a last-minute agreement to settle the dispute for $25m. Damages had been sought for physiological and psychiatric treatment, as well as added costs of further revision surgery, medical monitoring and other losses. The surgeries were carried out at The Cosmetic Institute's Sydney clinics at Parramatta and Bondi Junction, as well as at other facilities in the NSW capital and on the Gold Coast. The class action argued patients were not told of the risk of harm from the firm's "one size fits all" procedure and staff at the clinic were negligent and breached their duty of care and consumer guarantees. Out of the total settlement, $2.8m will be paid out to the 12 lead plaintiffs who headed up the case. A further $10m will be requested by the law firm Turner Freeman to cover its costs of running the lawsuit and future expenses working out the amount of compensation payable to women who come forward. The remaining $12.2m will be split between any other affected women. In 2018, The Cosmetic Institute sought to have the class action struck out by the court on the grounds there was "no reasonable cause of action", but was unsuccessful. The Cosmetic Institute and its subsidiaries are now under liquidation and may not need to pay anything. Three insurers for The Cosmetic Institute have been included in the class action. Under the proposed settlement, there have been no admissions of liability made by the liquidated medical firm or its former employees. The court will hear objections from affected women and arguments about whether the settlement is fair and reasonable at a two-day hearing scheduled for 13 May. A judge will then decide whether to sign off on the deal. [GN] COVANTA DADE: Brashevitzky Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVROHOM BRASHEVITZKY, et. al, v. COVANTA DADE RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-20861-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying both a Property Damage and a Medical Monitoring Class. Property Damage Class: "All persons or entities who, as of the date of the Court's certification order, owned real property in the Class Area as bounded by NW 106th Street in the north, to Okeechobee Road/SR27, to Palmetto Highway 826 in the east, NW 41st Street/36th Street to the south, and the Florida Turnpike to the west." Medical Monitoring Class: "All natural persons who resided within the Class Area as bounded by NW 106th Street in the north, to Okeechobee Road/SR27, to Palmetto Highway 826 in the east, NW 41st Street/36th Street to the south, and the Florida Turnpike to the west at any point between Feb. 12, 2023 and March 2, 2023." On Feb. 12, 2023, a fire started at the Miami-Dade County Resources Recovery Facility, a waste collection and incineration site in Doral, Florida operated by the Defendants. This was not a typical fire—it was a fire that produced a toxic plume over an area of several square miles around the facility. The residents of this area seek to compel the Defendants to remediate the contaminated areas and provide medical testing to detect cancer at the earliest possible time. The Plaintiff Brashevitzky owns a home near the Facility, where he, his wife, and children live. He works as a Rabbi at the Chabad Jewish Center that is also near the Facility. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XhPvdD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francisco Guerra, IV., Esq. Alicia O'Neill, Esq. Jennifer A. Neal, Esq. Mikal C. Watts, Esq. WATTS GUERRA LLP 875 E. Ashby Place, Suite 1200 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 447-0500 E-mail: fguerra@guerrallp.com aoneill@guerrallp.com jneal@guerrallp.com mcwatts@wattsguerra.com - and - Bruce C. Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN & KAPLAN, Esq. INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, LLC 9737 Doral Boulevard, Suite 482 Miami, FL 33178 Telephone: (305) 407-2420 E-mail: bkaplan@kaplan.attorney CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bid to File Second Amended Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JOHNSTONE and L.D., by and through her mother, LINDA JOHNSTONE, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01111-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Because Plaintiffs submitted no evidence or argument to excuse or explain their dilatory failure to seek leave to add a DNC registry claim, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to permit the filing of the proposed second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs do not offer a reasonable justification for their failure to seek leave to plead a DNC registry claim prior to the filing of the instant motion on December 22, 2023. The Plaintiffs have acknowledged that they knew of having been called twice by Defendant at least eight months prior to filing the instant motion. On June 23, 2022, Linda Johnstone commenced this class action lawsuit. She alleged that the Defendant contacted her cellular phone with a robocall prerecorded message. The Complaint proposed a nationwide class of persons who received the same or substantially similar robocall message from the Defendant. On June 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. Two weeks later, the Defendant answered the first amended complaint. On April 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file their first amended complaint. That motion was granted on June 9, 2023. CrossCountry offers mortgage lending services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RqmHpy at no extra charge.[CC] CSI ELECTRICAL: Court Addresses Compensable Time at Checkpoints --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. of DuaneMorris.com reports that in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Case No. S275431, 2024 Cal. LEXIS 1446 (Cal. Mar. 25, 2024), the California Supreme Court held that time spent on an employer's premises to undergo a security check could constitute compensable hours worked; that time spent traveling on an employer's premises may be compensable as employer-mandated travel time; and that employees covered by the Labor Code's "construction occupation" exception to meal periods may be entitled to minimum wage for the time spent working during an on-duty meal period. As a result, companies operating in California should review and adjust their pay policies on these issues to ensure complaint pay procedures. Case Background Plaintiff George Huerta worked at a solar power facility in Central California that was managed, in part, by Defendant CSI Electrical Contractors ("CSI"). At the start and end of each shift, employees waited at the facility's entrance to partake in a security check, which included rolling down a window and showing an ID badge, a visual inspection of the vehicle, and at times, a search of the vehicle. Huerta alleged that CSI owed him compensation for the time spent waiting to pass through the security checkpoints. After passing through the checkpoint, Huerta then drove down the facility's roads to reach the employee parking lot. Huerta, again, claimed he should have been compensated for the time spent driving from the facility's entrance to the parking lot. Huerta was also covered by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") that mandated an off-duty, unpaid 30-minute meal period. CSI's rules required workers to spend meal periods near their designated worksite for the shift, which Huerta alleged entitled him to additional compensation. Huerta filed a wage-and-hour class action against CSI seeking unpaid wages. He subsequently appealed his case to the Ninth Circuit, which, in turn, certified three questions to the California Supreme Court, including: (1) is time spent waiting to pass through a security checkpoint on an employer's premises compensable time; (2) does time spent traveling from a security checkpoint to the employee parking lot constitute compensable time; (3) are workers entitled to paid meal periods when they are prohibited from leaving the jobsite during meal periods? The California Supreme Court's Decision Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 16-2001 ("Wage Order No. 16") that governs wages, hours, and working conditions in the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries covered Huerta's work at the facility. To answer the three certified questions, the California Supreme Court interpreted Wage Order No. 16 as follows: First, the Supreme Court held that under Wage Order No. 16, the time an employee spends on an employer's premise waiting to undergo a mandatory security check could constitute compensable "hours worked" depending on the amount of "control" exercised over the employee. The Supreme Court noted that CSI required Huerta to participate in the security check; confined him to the premises until he finished the entrance and exit procedure; and made him perform "specific and supervised tasks" of waiting in his vehicle, rolling down his window, and allowing his personal vehicle to be searched by a guard. Thus, CSI exercised a sufficient amount of "control" over Huerta to render the time spent passing through the security checkpoint compensable time worked under the Wage Order. Next, the Supreme Court held that under Wage Order No. 16, travel time may be compensable where (1) "the employer required the employee's presence at an initial location before mandating travel to a subsequent location" and (2) "the employee's presence was required for an employment-related reason other than accessing the worksite." Here, the Supreme Court offered an example of a worker who reported to an initial jobsite, retrieved work supplies, received the work order, and then traveled to a second jobsite. Based on this example, the time spent travelling between jobsites represents compensable time. Since Huerta and CSI offered contradictory evidence on this point, the Supreme Court declined to express a "view" on whether the facility's security checkpoint was a "first location" that CSI mandated Huerta's presence. Finally, the Supreme Court held that "an employee must be paid a minimum wage for meal periods when an employer's prohibition on leaving the premises or a particular area forecloses the employee from engaging in activities he or she could otherwise engage in if permitted to leave," even if the employee is covered by a CBA-meal period exception under a Wage Order. The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on whether CSI's rules for meal periods prohibited Huerta from the leaving the facility during his 30-minute meal periods, but noted that "if Huerta's 'unpaid meal period' is compensable under the wage order as 'hours worked,' he is entitled to seek compensation for that time under Labor Code section 1194." Implications For Employers California continues to redefine what constitutes compensable time worked at the start and end of shifts. This decision is a must read for employers with mandatory security checkpoints, and such employers are advised to review their security protocols as it may constitute compensable hours worked. [GN] CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Shongho Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE SHONGO, et al, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02684-MJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of Class Settlement, appointment of the Plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel, certification of the class for settlement only and setting a final approval hearing and notice in this action. CSX is a supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North America. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4kntMQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Nace, Esq. Zachary Kelsay, Esq. NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C. One Church Street, Suite 802 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone:(202) 780-5153 E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com zach@nidellaw.com DAIFUKU SERVICES: Court Recommends Denial of Shaw's Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SHAW, on behalf of himself and others, v. DAIFUKU SERVICES AMERICA CORPORATION., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01084-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), Court recommending that: 1. Defendant's motion to strike be denied; 2. Defendant's evidentiary objections be denied; and 3. Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Because the Court finds the Plaintiff's principal class claims are not suitable for certification, the Court likewise will recommend that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied as to his derivative claims. The Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on July 12, 2021. The Plaintiff raises nine causes of action of behalf of himself and a putative class: (1) failure to pay for all hours worked, (2) failure to pay minimum wages, (3) failure to pay overtime wages, (4) failure to authorize and permit and/or make available meal and rest periods, (5) failure to reimburse business expenditures, (6) failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, (7) waiting time penalties, (8), failure to furnish Plaintiff’s records, and (9) unlawful business practices. On November 22, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to certify class. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class and subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "Class: All current and former, hourly, non-exempt employees of [Defendant] who worked in California at any time, during the period of July 2017, until the resolution of this action. Security Check Subclass: All Class members who worked at an Amazon facility during the Class Period. Regular Rate Subclass: All Class members who were paid overtime and/or meal and rest break premiums as well as a non- discretionary premium payment during the same workweek during the Class Period." The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for various projects as a mechanic in the Spring of 2020, in an Amazon facility in Bakersfield. He never worked at Defendant's airport operations. Daifuku is a materials handling company and is a part of one of the largest airport service providers in the United States. A copy of the Court's findings and recommendations dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6AZylN at no extra charge.[CC] DEL MONTE: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Diced Peaches' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Del Monte advertises its diced peaches as being with "100% juice," but the product includes artificial ingredients and preservatives, according to a new Del Monte class action lawsuit. The Del Monte diced peaches ingredient list includes ascorbic acid, a preservative that is not natural. The list also shows water added to juice concentrate is a primary ingredient in the Del Monte 100% juice, coming in a larger concentration than it naturally occurs. When fruit goes from its natural state to concentrate, it loses much of its water along with losing volume, fiber, natural fruit flavor, and crucial vitamin C, but keeping its sugar and calories, according to Caroline West Passerrello, a registered dietitian nutritionist quoted by the lawsuit. The diced peaches with 100% juice are thus mislabeled and misbranded because they don't include just natural juice but instead added water, ascorbic acid and other ingredients to make the product appear natural when it is not. Take advantage of our free claim filing service, as you may qualify for up to $615 in compensation. No proof of purchase is necessary to file a claim. Payments may be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis. [GN] DEVON ENERGY: Class Action Settlement in Wright Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Madeline A. Wright, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No. 2:22-cv-00213-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Kelly Rankin entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, certifying the class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of notice, and setting date for final fairness hearing. The certified Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All non-excluded persons or entities owning interests in Wyoming oil and gas wells who: (1) received Late Payments from the Defendant during the Claim Period for proceeds of Wyoming oil or gas production, or whose Proceeds for Wyoming oil or gas production were Late Payments sent to escrow by the Defendant during the Claim Period, or whose proceeds from Wyoming oil or gas production were Late Payments held in suspense by the Defendant and not escrowed or paid during the Claim Period; and (2) Such Late Payments did not include 18% interest. A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means payment, escrow, or held in suspense by the Defendant after the statutory periods identified in W.S. section 30-5-301. Late Payments do not include prior period adjustments, including retroactive adjustments to wells on federal units. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Wyoming; (3) publicly traded oil-and-gas companies and their affiliates or subsidiaries; and (4) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian Allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Wyoming Royalty Payment act, for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Wyoming. Devon is an energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z6mpSn at no extra charge.[CC] DIPSON THEATRES: Murphy Balks at Movie Tickets' Hidden Service Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIPSON THEATRES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00319 (W.D.N.Y., April 9, 2024), seeks relief and damages for Defendant's alleged violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's alleged failure to adhere to the disclosure standards concerning ticket prices. Allegedly, Defendant charged service fees to online purchases of movie tickets at https://www.dipsontheatres.com without properly disclosing those fees prior to the customer checking out. The Defendant displays an initial price for the ticket and later adds a "service fee" when the ticket is selected for purchase. The true total price of the ticket is only displayed on the checkout page as customers are about to complete their purchase, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and Class members purchased tickets on Defendant's website and were forced to pay the added fees in order to secure their tickets. The total cost was not disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members at the beginning of the purchase process, in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, alleges the suit. Dipson Theatres, Inc. is a movie theater chain based in Williamsville, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Colin A. Brown, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cbrown@zlk.com DIVIDEND FINANCE: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Danielle DaRos, writing for 12 NEWS, reports that four solar finance companies, including the subject of a recent CBS12 News I-Team report, are being sued for fraud by the Minnesota Attorney General. Now, a lawyer in Palm Beach County plans to sue at least one of them in a class action lawsuit. This is the latest development in a solar power scheme the I-Team has been investigating for more than a year, in which a now-defunct business called Vision Solar solicited expensive solar projects, installed many without permits and failed to hook some up to the power grid -- ripping off customers in several different states, including Florida. In February, the I-Team reported that the solar lending companies that worked with them were under scrutiny for their role. We spoke to Vision Solar customers who had financed their projects through Dividend Finance, and were still being asked to make payments on their loans, even if their solar panels weren't working. This week, Dividend Finance and three other solar lending companies are the subject of a lawsuit from the Minnesota AG, who alleges that they routinely stuck consumers with hidden fees in their loan contracts, inflated the price of solar panels by up to 30 percent, and ripped off consumers in that state to the tune of $35 million. A spokesperson for Dividend's parent company, Fifth Third Bank, told the I-Team: "We have reviewed the lawsuit filed by the Minnesota Attorney General against Dividend Solar Finance and other solar lenders and believe the claims against Dividend and Fifth Third are wrong. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously. We are committed to providing lending products to help consumers who wish to use solar energy." As that lawsuit plays out, an attorney from Palm Beach County is looking to use some of the same arguments in a new class action lawsuit against Dividend. [GN] DIXON ADVISORY: Court Approves $16MM Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Ford, writing for Money Management, reports that the Federal Court has approved the $16 million class action settlement regarding Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services. In a statement on the ASX on April 18, 2024, E&P Financial Group Limited announced that the Federal Court of Australia has approved the settlement of the class action filed by Shine Lawyers in December 2021 against Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Pty Ltd (DASS), E&P, Alan Dixon and Christopher Brown. The settlement, as announced in November 2023, is $16 million. E&P said a provision of $4 million has "previously been recognised in relation to the mechanism for settlement as contemplated in the Deed of Company Arrangement for DASS", and was reflected in E&P's financial report for the half year ended 31 December 2023. "The balance of the settlement amount is comprised of remaining available insurance proceeds," E&P said. "Consequently, the Shine Proceeding will be dismissed against E&P, Mr Alan Dixon and Mr Christopher Brown, and permanently stayed against DASS, without admission of any liability (subject to any appeal). "The representative proceeding filed by Piper Alderman in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021 will also be dismissed against E&P and Mr Alan Dixon, and permanently stayed against DASS (subject to any appeal)." On 3 April, the Federal Court pushed back a decision on the class action settlement for two weeks to "allow the applicant to provide further information to the court". The group did not provide further detail on exactly what kind of information the court is seeking. In November 2023, the class action, which alleged DASS financial advisers gave unsuitable advice and failed to address conflicts of interest, was settled for $16 million. At the time, Shine Lawyers, representing the class action, said a conditional settlement had been reached between E&P Financial Group and the estimated 4,000 customers allegedly affected by the conduct. The settlement was reached without admission of liability. The class action alleged E&P advisers, working under DASS -- which went into liquidation in January 2022 -- gave unsuitable advice that did not reflect their clients' needs or their financial circumstances. It was also alleged the advice was not in the clients' best interests and, when there was a conflict, it was not adequately addressed. The affected clients will retain the ability to make a claim with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority or Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR). "We are pleased to have been able to reach a conclusion in this class action for group members subject to the court's approval, and that group members will retain their rights to bring a claim against DASS, pursuant to the financial compensation scheme of last resort," Shine Lawyers' head of class actions, Vicky Antzoulatos, said at the time. In September 2022, the Federal Court imposed a $7.2 million penalty on Dixon Advisory over its investment advice. The court found that on 53 occasions between October 2015 and May 2019, Dixon Advisory was the responsible licensee of six representatives who did not act in the best interests of eight clients when they advised these clients to acquire, roll over or retain interests in the US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF) and URF-related products. Representatives of Dixon Advisory were also found to have failed to conduct a "reasonable investigation" of the clients' circumstances before providing advice. [GN] DOXIMITY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that today the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against Doximity, Inc. (NYSE: DOCS) ("Doximity" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Doximity common stock between February 9, 2022, and April 1, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Kissler v. Doximity, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02281 was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Doximity common stock during the Class Period may, no later than June 17, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 17, 2024 CLASS PERIOD: FEBRUARY 9, 2022, THROUGH APRIL 1, 2024 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Email at info@ktmc.com DEFENDANTS' MISCONDUCT Doximity operates a digital platform that provides connections between, medical information to, and patient scheduling tools for medical professionals. The Class Period begins on February 9, 2022, following the release of Doximity's quarterly financial results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2022, which ended December 31, 2021, after the market closed the night prior. During the February 8, 2022 quarterly investor earnings call, Defendant Anna Bryson, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, emphasized that "marketers have been able to witness the value of running these digital programs" and that it was this "value that's the main reason we're seeing this sustained demand from our customers and not new [COVID] variants." To this end, Defendant Bryson further assured investors that the Company was "focused on . . . really building a business that can provide years of sustainable growth with high margins." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to tout the sustainability of the Company's business prospects while also downplaying the importance of customer upsell rates on the Company's financial performance. Notwithstanding Defendants' repeated claims regarding the sustainability of Doximity's growth and profitability, investors began to learn the truth about the Company on August 8, 2023, when, after the market closed, Doximity reported its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2024, which ended June 30, 2023. While the Company exceeded its quarterly revenue and adjusted EBITDA guidance for the first quarter, the Company provided disappointing guidance for the second quarter of fiscal year 2024 and slashed its guidance for the full fiscal year 2024. In conjunction with the disappointing guidance, Doximity announced that it would reduce its workforce by approximately 10%. The Company further noted that the workforce reduction is expected to cost approximately $8 million to $10 million. In explaining this about-face, Defendant Bryson admitted that the Company's "major upsells have materially underperformed, and we expect this to continue in the near term." Defendant Tangney further explained that Doximity failed to close sales due, in part, to "fewer face-to-face meetings with our clients." On this news, the price of Doximity common stock declined $7.49 per share, or nearly 23%, from a close of $32.79 per share on August 8, 2023, to close at $25.30 per share on August 9, 2023. Investors learned more about the unsustainability of the Company's revenue growth on April 1, 2024, when Jehoshaphat Research published a report alleging, among other things, that "Doximity's underlying sales . . . are declining at a negative -3-6% rate, but that this decline has been masked through accelerated revenue recognition." On this news, the price of Doximity common stock declined $1.11 per share, or more than 4% over two trading-days, from a close of $26.91 per share on March 28, 2024, to close at $25.80 per share on April 2, 2024. WHAT CAN I DO? Doximity investors may, no later than June 17, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Doximity investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Jonathan Naji, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] E&E CO: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 28, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORIANN STAPLES, et al., v. E&E CO., LTD., Case No. 3:24-cv-00077-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Alex Tse entered an order setting the following schedule for further proceedings: Further Case Management Conference: Jan. 10, 2025 Deadline to File Motion for Class Feb. 28, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Opposition to Class April 14, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Reply in support of Class May 14, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Hearing on Motion for Class June 6, 2025 Certification: E&E is engaged in the wholesale distribution of home furnishings and housewares. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVImj8 at no extra charge.[CC] EQUITABLE ADVISORS: Newbury Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN NEWBURY, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. EQUITABLE ADVISORS, LLC AND EQUITABLE NETWORK, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-004907 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other current and former financial professionals (FPs) employed by Equitable within the United States in Equitable's 20th Edition Program and/or the Preliminary Employment Program. Equitable classifies its FPs as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA but requires them to perform non-exempt duties. Allegedly, he and other FPs were not paid proper compensation for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the Plaintiff. Equitable Advisors, LLC is a financial services company headquartered in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 FANTASIA TRADING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANTASIA TRADING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02787 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, website, www.anker.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. FANTASIA TRADING, LLC sells Anker products which includes wireless charging, car charging, and our best-selling portable and wall chargers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Safety Defect With eTorque System ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin filed a class action lawsuit against FCA US LLC -- the maker of Ram trucks -- after a serious safety defect in vehicles equipped with eTorque came to light. The lawsuit alleges there is a defect with the eTorque system that causes the vehicles to stall suddenly, automatically shift to park, and automatically engage the emergency brake, without any warning to the driver. These stalling events have been reported in all driving conditions, including on busy highways and rush hour traffic, placing the driver and others on the road at an increased risk of injury. What is eTorque? Simply put, eTorque is FCA's hybrid technology. The technology is used in Jeep and Ram vehicles. It is supposed to enhance performance, efficiency, and smoothness with the following: -- Stop-Start Functionality -- eRoll Assist -- Upshift Rev Matching -- Electronic System Power -- Downshift Rev Matching -- Regenerative Braking What Vehicles Are Affected The following vehicles from 2019-2023 are a part of the class action lawsuit. -- Ram 1500 -- Jeep Wrangler -- Jeep Wagoneer Lawsuit At-A-Glance -- In February 2023, Beasley Allen filed the lawsuit, alleging the vehicles were defective and unsafe and that FCA knew about the dangerous defect before consumers purchased their vehicles but did not disclose it. -- In April 2023, FCA issued a recall for the 2021 model year Ram 1500 trucks with eTorque but excluded all other models and model years. -- FCA's recall claimed the cause of the stalling events was a rich fuel condition, and they would issue a software update to adjust the air-fuel ratio. -- In response to FCA's recall, plaintiffs worked with an independent automotive consultant to test whether a rich fuel condition was causing the stalling events. Testing indicated that it was not the cause. -- On July 21, 2023, FCA moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, arguing in part that the claims were moot in light of FCA's voluntary recall. -- On January 17, 2024, Judge Mathew Leitman denied FCA's motion to dismiss. Following Judge Leitman's order, the parties are now beginning the early stages of discovery. We will keep you updated on the litigation as it progresses to trial. The case is Fisher, et al., v. FCA US LLC, 23-cv-10426, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [GN] FCTI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Durkee Due June 10, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrea Durkee v. FCTI, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02537-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order regarding class settlement as follows: 1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are hereby vacated. 2. The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (“Motion”) no later than June 10, 2024. Defendant is encouraged to also file a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval. 3. The Plaintiff is advised that the court will not grant the Motion unless it includes a discussion of the Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements, including but not Limited to evidentiary support, where appropriate, regarding the following issues: (A) All class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) certification requirements, (B) Whether the settlement is within a range of possible judicial approval, (C) The proposed allocation plan for the settlement fund. (D) The arms-length negotiation of the settlement discussion(s). 4. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the parties shall address whether the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency received notice of the settlement, and any response to such notice. 5. Failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the deadline set by the court shall result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order. FCTI provides advanced ATM operations service and technologies. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ybKyZS at no extra charge.[CC] FLORIDA: Wallace Complaint Dismissed for Failure to State Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- In the NT OF CORRECTIONS and COLONEL B. STEPHENSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-14094-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and denying all pending motions as moot. Mr. Wallace alleges that Colonel "B. Stephenson" violated his Fifth Amendment rights by confiscating Wallace's prison-issued tablet, depriving Wallace of "the right to be able to communicant [sic] with his family," and preventing Wallace from accessing "107 songs" he had purchased. Florida Department of Corrections is the government agency responsible for operating state prisons in the U.S. state of Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w3601w at no extra charge.[CC] FROEDTERT HEALTH: Lutz Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nichole Lutz, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Froedtert Health Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00974-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), granting her motion for conditional authorization, thereby authorizing her to send the notice attached to this motion as Exhibit 1 along with the opt-in form attached to this motion as Exhibit 2 to all hourly non-exempt employees who worked for Froedtert Health Inc. on or after Apr. 9, 2021. The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification as to two claims: (1) Froedtert was obligated to compute its employees' pay for their hours worked over per week as time and a half the regular rate; and (2) When Froedtert employees worked on a holiday, and received pay for working on the holiday equal to less than time and a half the regular rate of pay, the entire amount the employees received for working on the holiday including any premium pay must be included in the regular rate. In addition to conditional certification, the Plaintiff also requests that the Court order Froedtert to produce to her the names and last known addresses of all employees who worked for Froedtert on or after Apr. 9, 2021. Froedtert provides healthcare services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dgPXDv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414( 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting GM leave to file a post class certification motion for summary judgment. GM contends that a class member cannot as a matter of law establish liability against GM for breach of contract or express warranty if that class member did not experience the Shift-to-Park condition after receiving a repair from a GM dealer. Because the Court only recently certified the class and GM could not have reasonably anticipated that the Court would adopt this class definition at the time summary judgment motions were due, good cause exists to modify the scheduling order to allow GM to file a summary judgment motion addressing this legal issue. Given that such a motion could not have been brought prior to class certification against non-parties, consideration of a summary judgment motion now against the vast majority of absent class members is both appropriate and necessary. On March 25, 2024, the Court denied, in part, GM's motion for summary judgment and granted Riley's motion for class certification. The Certified Class consists of: (1) Initial purchasers and lessees of new Class Vehicles who purchased or leased their vehicles in Ohio; (2) sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the Shifter Issue during the warranty period; and who (3) were not provided with a silicon-free replacement part. The alleged defect involves the Shift-to-Park condition, which is when a message appears on the dashboard indicating that a class vehicle needs to be shifted into park even though the vehicle is already in park. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sWHUwl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel R. Birnbaum, Esq. Joseph J. Orzano, Esq. William F. Benson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: dbirnbaum@seyfarth.com jorzano@seyfarth.com wbenson@seyfarth.com GENIUS BRANDS: 9th Circuit Court Reverses Class Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on April 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a company that licenses children's entertainment content and certain of its officers. In re Genius Brands Int', Inc. Sec. Litig., -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 1473942 (9th Cir. 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made actionable misstatements after it was told that its shares would be delisted from the NASDAQ exchange. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the company's conduct rendered certain challenged statements misleading, that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation for certain claims, and that one claim was appropriately dismissed for failure to plead loss causation. First, the Court reversed the district court's conclusion with respect to one claim where the district court held plaintiffs failed to plead an actionable misrepresentation. The Court explained plaintiffs contended the company made a misleading statement when the company stated that it "ha[d] not … paid or agreed to pay to any Person any compensation for soliciting another to purchase any other securities of the Company," because the company allegedly had, in fact, arranged for favorable articles to be published about the company. Id. at *5. The Court held this statement was adequately alleged to be false as either a misleading statement or actionable omission. Id. As to a misleading statement theory, the Court held that the purchase of securities is solicited when someone petitions, entices, lures or urges another to purchase a security, which the company did by having favorable media coverage disseminated about it. Id. As to an omission theory, the Court explained that, while the company did not have an affirmative duty to disclose it had arranged for favorable news coverage about itself, in stating that it had not "paid or agreed to pay to any Person any compensation for soliciting another to purchase any other securities of the Company," the company was required to disclose its efforts to secure favorable coverage. Id. at *6. Next, the Court turned to claims the district court dismissed for failure to plead loss causation, or which the company otherwise contended should be dismissed for failure to plead loss causation. The Court observed that one claim was appropriately dismissed because plaintiffs failed to identify a corrective disclosure -- "a moment where the truth about these statements was revealed." Id. at *7. The Court explained that the challenged statement -- in which the company indicated a celebrity would invest in it -- was not revealed to be false by the company's disclosure that the celebrity would be compensated in connection with some of the company's entertainment offerings. Id. As the Court noted, investing in the company and developing content with the company were not "mutually exclusive" events. Id. The Court then explained that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged loss causation in connection with a statement about how often one of the company's programs was shown on a television channel devoted to children’s programming. Id. at *8. The Court held the district court had wrongly suggested plaintiffs needed to plead that the company’s stock price had initially increased on the basis of the alleged misstatement; instead, the Court held plaintiffs only needed to plead that the company's stock had been inflated by the alleged misstatement, which only requires a plaintiff to plead that a stock price was higher than it would have been had the false statements not been made. Id. In other words, "initial price inflation and initial price increase are not one and the same; a price increase is one way of demonstrating that the price was higher than it would have been, but it is not the only way." Id. (emphasis in original). Moreover, the Court emphasized that plaintiffs expressly alleged that the company's statements about how often its programming was aired on a particular channel did increase the company's stock by over 25%, and that the stock price then allegedly fell on reports from short sellers that the company's statements were inaccurate. Id. at *9. And the Court held that the short seller reports were adequately alleged to be corrective disclosures because they synthesized public information into a form that was "readily digestible." Id. at *9-10. The Court similarly explained that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation in connection with the company's post on social media -- in a statement filled with dollar signs and attaching a news article that speculated the company was about to be acquired -- because plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the company's conduct had the effect of making the company's stock price higher than it otherwise would have been had the company not done so. Id. at *10-11. The Court also held that plaintiffs adequately alleged the company's subsequent issuance of a press release that merely announced the company would jointly own content generated by a comic book author amounted to a corrective disclosure, because the press release's failure to discuss a potential acquisition allegedly signaled to the market that the company was not going to be purchased imminently. Id. at *11. Finally, with respect to the company's announcement that it would jointly own the comic book author's content and use that to create entertainment, the Court concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation because, while the company's stock price was allegedly falling both before and after the challenged statement was made, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the company's stock price was higher than it would have been had the company not made this statement. Thus, it was plausible that the company's stock price would have fallen even more, had the statement not been made. Id. at *12. The Court directed that, on remand, the district court should assess whether plaintiffs otherwise adequately alleged that the challenged statements constituted actionable misrepresentations. Id. [GN] GLOBE LIFE: Misleads Business Information, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Globe Life Inc. (NYSE: GL) resulting from allegations that Globe Life may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Globe Life securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24072 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 11, 2024, Fuzzy Panda Research published a report entitled, "Globe Life (GL): Executives Disregarded Wide-Ranging "Insurance Fraud" While They Received Millions in Undisclosed Kick-Back Scheme." The report alleged many issues, including insurance fraud which was reported and subsequently ignored by management. Additionally, the report made allegations of policies written for dead and fictitious people, forced signatures, funds withdrawn from consumers' bank accounts without approval, and fictitious bank accounts used to fund numerous fake policies. On this news, Globe Life's stock fell $55.76 per share, or 53%, to close at $49.17 per share on April 11, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GROUP HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 17, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Group Health Plan Litigation, Case No. 0:23-cv-00267 (D. Minn., Filed Feb. 2, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell entered an order approving stipulation regarding extension of discovery with respect to class certification as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification June 5, 2024 expert disclosures: -- Deposition of Plaintiffs' class June 25, 2024 certification experts: -- The Defendant's disclosure of class July 16, 2024 certification experts and reports: -- Deposition of Defendant's class Aug. 6, 2024 certification experts: -- Class certification rebuttal expert Aug. 27, 2024 disclosures and reports: -- Deposition of class certification Sept. 17, 2024 rebuttal experts: -- The Plaintiff's class certification Oct. 17, 2024 motion: -- The Defendant's opposition to Nov. 12, 2024 class certification: -- Reply to class certification Nov. 26, 2024 motion: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury.[CC] HEAVENLY HAVEN: Scott Sues Over Below Minimum and Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHIL SCOTT, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEAVENLY HAVEN CARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00259-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., April 2, 2024) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from Defendant's failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiff Phil Scott is currently employed by Heavenly Haven. He asserts that in early February 2024, Heavenly Haven announced that it would no longer be paying more than 40 hours a week, although employees would still be required to work 53 hours a week. Instead, those 13 additional hours per week would simply be unpaid. As he works 53 hours per week, his effective hourly rate is only $6.79, below the FLSA required minimum wage of at least $7.25 per hour, says the Plaintiff. Heavenly Haven operates a home care agency. Heavenly Haven employees travel to the homes of elderly and disabled individuals and assist these individuals in caring for themselves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104 New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (504) 267-0777 Facsimile: (504) 513-3084 E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com - and - Robert B. Landry III, Esq. ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC 5420 Corporate Blvd., Suite 303 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Telephone: (225) 349-7460 Facsimile: (225) 349-7466 HOME POINT: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Home Point Capital Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-11457-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the Settlement, approval of the Plan of Allocation, and final certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2WtelD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. Danielle S. Myers, Esq. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq. Chad Kohnson, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. Ana Avalos Cuellar, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: elleng@rgrdlaw.com dmyers@rgrdlaw.com jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com chadj@rgrdlaw.com jzweig@rgrdlaw.com aavalos@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. Francis E. Judd, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com fjudd@vmtlaw.com HYATT CORPORATION: Court Certifies Class in Granados Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS CALDERON GRANADOS, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, doing business as ALILA MAREA BEACH RESORT ENCINITAS, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01001-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn Huff entered an order: -- certifying the class for purposes of settlement, -- preliminarily approves the proposed settlement, -- appointing class representative and class counsel, -- approving the form and manner of the notice of the proposed settlement to the settlement class members, and -- appointing CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator. Further, the Court schedules the final approval hearing for Monday, Aug. 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 proposed settlement class is defined as "all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees working for Hyatt at the Alila Marea Beach Resort Encinitas at any time between Jan. 25, 2021, to Jan. 5, 2024." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's uniform policies and practices as to timekeeping, meal periods, rest periods, wage payments, minimum wages, overtime, wage statements, and pay at termination applicable to all non-exempt employees violate California law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Hyatt, who worked at the Alila Marea Beach Resort Encinitas as a massage therapist from March 2021 until August 2021. Hyatt operates as a hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FLwc2q at no extra charge.[CC] ICHIMI USA: Takahashi Seeks Unpaid Wages, PAGA Penalties -------------------------------------------------------- ITSUKO TAKAHASHI, an individual; on behalf of herself and other similarly situated v. ICHIMI U.S.A. INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08885 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Ichimi U.S.A. on or around September 23, 2022 as a server at its restaurant located in Torrance, CA. The Plaintiff, like all other aggrieved employees, has been performing multiple tasks in a day and has been working an average of well over 50 hours per week. However, Defendants allegedly failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked. She was paid less than the required minimum wage and was not paid overtime compensation throughout her employment. Additionally, the Defendant had no practice or policy for keeping track of hours their employees worked, such as time cards, and the employees were also not provided with any information on how much tips were collected and distributed among employees. Defendant allegedly committed other Labor Code violations, including failure to provide meal and rest periods and failure to provide accurate wage statements, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages as well as civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act for the above-mentioned Labor Code violations. Ichimi U.S.A. Inc. owns and operates Japanese restaurants in the city of Torrance, Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Atsushi Kajioka, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ATSUSHI KAJIOKA 9171 Wislhire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 288-0525 Facsimile: (310) 288-0588 E-mail: Law@kajioka.net ILLINOIS: Illegally Seizes Property Value From Taxpayers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Capitol Fax reports that a new lawsuit aims to abolish the long-standing practice of Illinois counties selling properties over their unpaid taxes in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that declared the practice unconstitutional. "County governments across Illinois have been illegally seizing property value from taxpayers across Illinois for decades," said Daniel Suhr, an attorney with the Chicago-based law firm Hughes & Suhr, which filed the suit. "The US Supreme Court made that eminently clear in its decision, and our lawsuit is an effort to make victims of this unconstitutional policy whole." At stake is potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in home equity that property owners lost when Illinois counties sold their homes or commercial property for back taxes. A study by the Pacific Legal Foundation estimated that in the years 2014 to 2021, property owners in 11 Illinois counties sacrificed about $300 million in equity when their properties were sold for tax debt. "It's equity theft," Suhr said. Again, this is about selling houses for owed back taxes when the equity in those houses exceeded the money owed. The contention is the homeowners were unconstitutionally robbed of that excess equity. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property without paying just compensation to the property's owner. For decades, the counties of Illinois have violated this prohibition. The violation proceeds as follows. First, people or businesses fall behind on paying their property taxes -- often, only a few thousand dollars in back taxes. In response, the county treasurer executes a tax deed taking the property, either into the hands of the county directly or to a tax-lien buyer who has purchased the back taxes on the property. Either way, that taking is for the entire value of the property, not only the value of the taxes owed. That surplus value -- the difference between the taxes owed and the value of the property -- is never returned to the former owner. The U.S. Supreme Court recently held, unanimously, that this practice of seizing the surplus value in connection with property taken to satisfy a tax lien violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Tyler v. Hennepin County , 598 U.S. 631 (2023) The victims of that policy are spread across Illinois's 102 counties, though they are most often poor, elderly, and vulnerable. Stealing the surplus value from these individuals is not just unconstitutional, it is unconscionable. This lawsuit seeks redress for these unconstitutional, uncompensated takings. More precisely, this suit seeks relief on behalf of a class of all victims of the counties' property value theft. And it seeks this relief against a class consisting of every Illinois County. [GN] INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FL: To Reform Opioid Class Settlement Funds ----------------------------------------------------------------- Regina Marcazzo-Skarka of VeroNews reports that Indian River County is revamping the way millions in proceeds from two opioid class-action settlements are distributed and used each year until the flow of money ends in 2039. In its role as lead agency, the Substance Awareness Center of Indian River County is tasked with turning the funds into services to fight opioid abuse in the community. The agency is conducting a needs assessment, including focus groups and interviews with, so far, 110 people, including drug-treatment professionals and people who have dealt with opioid addiction in their families. "This is an opportunity for us to create a system of impactful and lasting change," said Carrie Maynard-Lester, Substance Awareness Center executive director. The Florida Attorney General's Office handled the class action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies "claiming they knew or should have known" about the dangers of opioid addiction. Indian River County opted into the suit in June 2021, making it eligible for annual payouts from both the retailer and manufacturer settlements. So far, $139,000 from the retailer settlement has gone to the 19th Judicial Circuit Alternative Court Program (Drug Court) for assessment, treatment, testing and services for cases diverted from criminal court to drug court. More than $1.2 million from the manufacturers' settlement was allocated by the Indian River County Public Safety Council to five local agencies which deal with drug abuse locally on a daily basis. The funds must be used to combat opioid related problems. The Indian River County Sheriff's Office received $350,000 for improvements to the treatment wing at the jail. The Substance Awareness Center got $150,000 for the drug treatment program at the jail, plus $50,000 for a countywide needs assessment study. The IRC Mental Health Collaborative received $40,000 for education, training and public awareness. The 19th Judicial Circuit Drug Court, received $305,000 for court-ordered inpatient and outpatient treatment of indigent defendants. The Treasure Coast Homeless Council was awarded $282,000 to house outpatients and drug-addicted people when they are released from jail. Annual payouts will decrease each year, the manufacturer settlement funds gradually declining to $132,742 in year 18, and the retail settlement funds decreasing to $57,387 in 2039. Of the $99,139.70 remaining this budget cycle, the additional $60,000 will be used by the Substance Awareness Center to create the expedited fund assessment process and the $39,139.70 was rolled over to be used next year. [GN] INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bowman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DALLAS BOWMAN; THOMAS DAVIES; FRED FURLANO, SR.; and CODY HECKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S., INC. d/b/a INGERSOLL-RAND, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00285 (N.D. Ind., April 9, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as field service technicians. INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S., INC. d/b/a INGERSOLL-RAND offers a full range of industry leading gear pumps, from industrial process, magnetically coupled and lubrication. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON LLP 429 North Pennsylvania Street Suite 204 Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Facsimile: (317) 637-2369 Email: jmacey@maceylaw.com JACK HULLAND: Court Orders Release of Student Info in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reports that the Yukon Supreme Court has ordered the government to disclose the names and contact details of students from Jack Hulland Elementary School (JHES) involved in a class action suit concerning alleged inappropriate restraints and seclusions between 2007 and 2022. The class action, representing current and former students of JHES, centred on accusations that students were inappropriately held, restrained, locked in rooms, or placed in seclusion during the specified period. The plaintiffs argued that these actions were contrary to the duty of care and fiduciary obligations owed to the students, highlighting a lack of appropriate policies and procedures at JHES. At the center of the dispute is the disclosure of sensitive student records, which the Yukon government initially resisted, citing privacy concerns under s. 20 of the Education Act. This section limits the availability of student records without written consent from the student or parents if the student is over 16. However, the court found that while the student records contain names and contact information, such data also exists outside these confidential files, thereby not under the same strict privacy constraints. The court rejected the government's argument that the plaintiffs must exhaust other means of obtaining the information, such as through the RCMP or external investigators, who accessed the records for criminal investigations. The court emphasized that such disclosures by third parties would be outside the intended limited purposes and could not substitute for direct disclosure obligations in civil actions. Additionally, the Supreme Court deemed the request for complete student records for all potential class members premature, considering the ongoing class membership confirmation process. The court noted that obtaining written permissions to access more detailed records should be more straightforward once class membership is confirmed after the opt-out deadline. The court highlighted the challenges in managing student data privacy while ensuring accountability and transparency in public institutions, particularly in sensitive cases involving minors. The Yukon government is expected to comply with the order, facilitating the progress of this class action suit as it moves towards addressing the systemic negligence allegations and potentially discussing settlements. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Take Aim on Welfare Plan Fiduciaries ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that as mentioned in our recent blog post, the recently filed class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson et. al., D.N.J., No. 1:24-cv-00671 (Feb. 5, 2024)) over alleged excessive prescription drug costs takes a new approach with respect to familiar claims of breach of fiduciary duty for failure to monitor plan costs. Instead of targeting retirement plan fiduciaries, who have been a common target of excessive fee litigation over the last several years, the Lewandowski plaintiffs take aim at the actions of welfare plan fiduciaries. Division BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) made numerous changes to ERISA with the aim of reducing healthcare costs and increasing protections for participants of health and welfare plans. These new requirements, examples of which include no-surprise billing provisions and increased price transparency, arguably place a greater fiduciary burden on plan sponsors by increasing the amount of readily available data related to plan costs. While these new requirements have been in place for over two years, their impact on plan sponsors and other fiduciaries continues to develop. These new measures can leave employers vulnerable to litigation for potential breaches of fiduciary duty, and the plaintiffs' bar appears poised to pursue these novel avenues of liability. Echoes of Retirement Plans While the same fiduciary standards arguably applied to health and welfare plans prior to the CAA, the new requirements introduced by the CAA increase the information available to fiduciaries (and the public), resulting in a heightened burden on fiduciaries and a greater source of information for plaintiffs' attorneys. These changes should not be unfamiliar to seasoned plan fiduciaries. The new provisions are reminiscent of those applicable to retirement plans, including the naming of plan sponsors -- in both fully insured and self-funded arrangements -- as fiduciaries, the removal of gag clauses in contracts pertaining to price and quality information, and the disclosure of broker compensation as required by ERISA Sec. 408(b)(2). The compensation disclosure rules are of particular interest to plaintiffs' attorneys, as they may lead to increased scrutiny of the underlying fees and result in litigation related to unreasonable vendor fees and services. Retirement plan sponsors have been subjected to a myriad of excessive fee lawsuits in recent years, and the CAA has opened the door to similar claims on the health and welfare plan side. Best Practices and Next Steps The CAA's new requirements and the increase in active litigation over these issues demand enhanced vigilance surrounding ERISA fiduciary standards for health and welfare plans. As such, it is vital that employers and other health plan fiduciaries follow these standards and adopt a rigorous system of procedural prudence. Some clear, actionable steps employers can take to prepare for this potential new wave of litigation include the following: 1. Coordinate with plan service providers to ensure compliance with the new CAA requirements. 2. Develop requests for proposals or similar mechanisms to compare fee models from multiple service providers prior to contracting or renewing plan relationships. 3. Review the cost and pricing information from third-party administrators and other service providers that will now be available due to the prohibition on gag clauses and other CAA transparency requirements. 4. Consider engaging a consultant to review price comparison data to ensure the plan is paying reasonable compensation to its service providers. 5.Conduct a plan audit that includes a review of service provider performance and contract terms. 6. Consider the adoption of new price monitoring and review policies by committees charged with administering health and welfare plans. 7. If cost and pricing information is not forthcoming from third-party administrators and other service providers, document compliance with ERISA Section 408(b)(2)(B)(viii), including submitting a request for the information in writing and notifying the Department of Labor of any failure to provide the requested information. Once again, policies and procedures related to retirement plans will serve as a useful guide for health and welfare plan fiduciaries seeking protection from these novel lawsuits. [GN] KAYAK SOFTWARE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-2786 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, website, www.kayak.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION provides Internet travel comparison and management services. The Company develops and operates a website and mobile application that enables users to research and compare travel information such as flights, hotels, rental cars, and vacation packages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com KENVUE INC: Band Aid Products Contains PFAS Substances ------------------------------------------------------ JO ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04665 (D.N.J., April 8, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Band-Aid Bandages products ("Band-Aids") for personal care purposes contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Defendants have not told consumers, that PFAS "forever chemicals," notorious for having adverse effects on humans and our environment, are present in unsafe amounts in Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages. Defendants have used and continue to use PFAS chemicals in their adhesive bandages for the water-proof qualities. The Defendants are well-aware that consumers are extremely concerned about the use of PFAS chemicals in their products, yet Defendants have continued to market and advertise their Band-Aid brand bandages using the representations described herein in order to profit off of unsuspecting consumers. Had the Defendants disclosed to the Plaintiff and Class Members that their adhesive bandages contained and contain PFAS chemicals, Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased Defendants' adhesive bandages, or they would have paid significantly less for them. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failures, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer serious injury, says the suit. KENVUE INC. operates as a consumer health company. The Company offers a consumer health portfolio in self-care, skin health & beauty, and essential health products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. Nigel Halliday, Esq. Seeger Weiss LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 KIA AMERICA: Vaughn Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of Drivers' Data --------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELYN VAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., KIA CORPORATION, and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01473-JFM (E.D. Pa., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of illegal tracking and sharing of driver behavior data. The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendants' alleged unlawful collection and sharing of consumers' driver behavior data without their knowledge or consent. Allegedly, Defendants install features capable of tracking driver behavior on numerous Kia vehicles to secretly record various driver-behavior metrics. Such data is then sold to credit agencies and/or data-aggregation firms. These credit companies and data aggregators then sell the data to automobile insurance companies who use the data to increase quotes and premiums for drivers' automobile insurance. All of these happen without drivers' full knowledge and consent, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other drivers exploited by Defendant's illicit scheme, brings claims for Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Consumer Protection Laws, as well as for tortious interference, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. Kia America, Inc. is a vehicle design, manufacturing, distribution, and/or service company based in Irvine, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. Honik LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com LEADSMARKET.COM: Faces New TCPA Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman of the National Law Review, reports that Leadsmarket is facing a new TCPA class action and it is part of a pretty clear trend. For many years lead gen marketplaces were mostly outside of the TCPA fray, but following the success of the Wolf pursuing QuoteWizard recently the Plaintiff's bar has become much bolder about pursuing marketplaces directly -- and not just buyers and sellers. In the new Leadsmarket suit the Plaintiff alleges it is responsible for texts sent by publishers in its network: Marketing Labs would send SMS text messages to consumers for the purpose of driving traffic to Nesmetaju websites. LeadsMarket would then sell the consumer data entered into Nesmetaju websites to lenders in the subprime/payday lending industry. MARKETING LABS LLC and NESMETAJU, LLC, are also named in the suit. The class identified in the complaint is: Do-Not-Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States where: (1) the person registered their phone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry 31 or more days; (2) the person's number was registered to an individual rather than a business; (3) the person received two or more calls from Marketing Labs within twelve months; and (4) those text messages were for the purpose of driving web traffic to a website owned by Nesmetaju. This new suit is yet another reminder of the TCPA risks to ALL players in the leadgen space. Just because you operate a marketplace doesn't mean you're immune to TCPA suits. While the buyers and makers of calls have the most risk, sellers and marketplaces often find themselves named in suits as well.[GN] LEMONADE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Allison Bell of Think Advisor reports that Lemonade has joined a long list of companies facing lawsuits over how their websites have shared visitor data with other companies. Plaintiffs have filed a complaint accusing the New York-based insurance broker of sending life insurance applicant information to Meta's Facebook site, Snap's Snapchat site, TikTok and other parties without the applicants' consent. "By allowing this third-party access, Lemonade violated users' right to privacy, as enshrined by statute and common law," according to the complaint, which was in a state court in Nassau County, New York. Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher, the attorney who filed the suit, is seeking permission to represent a class that would consist of all people who applied for a quote for term life insurance from Lemonade's website from March 15, 2021, through Sept. 28, 2023. The lead plaintiffs are Sean La Febre, a San Francisco resident; Jeffrey Parker, a Philadelphia resident; and Kendall Greeven, of Vista, California. The plaintiffs have accused Lemonade of violating New York state's general business law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act. The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial and damages to be determined by the court. Representatives for the plaintiffs and Lemonade did not respond to requests for comment. The backdrop: Lawyers have organized thousands of class-action suits over companies' use of websites in recent years. Suits against companies of all kinds, including many complaints filed this week against the parent of Google, focus on concerns that website managers sent user data to web traffic tracking services, advertisers or other services in violation of state or federal privacy laws or other laws. Bethany Lukitsch, a partner at BakerHostetler, reported at a recent Food & Drug Law Institute event that plaintiffs have filed at least 100 suits based just on how the California Invasion of Privacy Act applies to website chat features. Many suits against life and annuity issuers raise questions about whether the site owners collected users' health information and whether they provided adequate notice and safeguards when connecting their sites with traffic tracking service providers or insurance underwriting service providers. [GN] LEPRINO FOODS: Faces Simmons Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW SIMMONS and JAMIE ZEIGLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY and LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00459-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2024) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations to recover unpaid wages for work performed on behalf of Defendant by Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class. The complaint alleges Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to pay all wages, failure to pay wages and overtime wages for time spent donning and doffing protective gear, and failure to provide annual wage notices and pay statements. Plaintiffs Zeigler and Simmons worked for Defendants as Milk Receivers at Defendants' location in Wavery, New York from approximately July 12, 2021 through the present and from approximately January 8, 2019 through the present, respectively. Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver, Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com - and - James Emmet Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Improper Foreclosure of Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY RENEE HERN a/k/a TIFFANY RENEE DRAGO, executrix, pro per, for the estate of ELIZABETH A. DRAGO-BURSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL, LLC; CELINK, INC; and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 24-02111 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' unlawful foreclosure of its property which caused and continues to cause the Plaintiff great and irreparable injury. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants do not have an equitable right to foreclose on the Property located at 14445 W. Park Ave., Boulder Creek, CA 95006, because the Defendants have failed to perfect any security interest in the real property as collateral and cannot prove to the court that they have a valid interest a real party in interest to the underlying Deed of Trust. The purported power of sale, or power to foreclose non-judicially, by the Defendants, no longer applies by operation of law. Use of non-judicial process violated the Plaintiff's rights, says the suit. LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL LLC is a reverse mortgage lender. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented pro se. LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Carroll, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of 4,000 Louisiana foster children, alleging that the state's Department of Children and Family Services operates under overwhelming caseloads and fails to protect kids from mental and physical harm. The New York-based group A Better Childhood and two law firms filed the lawsuit in the Middle District of Louisiana on April 10 on behalf of seven plaintiffs. The 95-page complaint outlines high-profile fatalities of two 2-year-olds who were in the DCFS foster-care system, the "hemorrhaging" of department employees and caseloads that are three times higher than the national standard. "Louisiana has consistently failed to adequately address the myriad deficiencies of its child welfare system," the lawsuit states. "DCFS does not have a sufficient number of workers to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children in its care. Upon information and belief, caseloads are so high that caseworkers are prevented from adequately overseeing children in DCFS custody. . . . " The department declined to comment on the pending litigation, and the Louisiana Governor's Office did not respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit lists the department, DCFS Secretary David Matlock and Gov. Jeff Landry as defendants. This year, the state recorded its lowest rate of providing children with stable or permanent living situations since the 2019-2020 fiscal year, according to the complaint. "These failures also mean that Louisiana's foster children are not provided appropriate mental health or medical assessments, nor do they receive adequate mental or medical health care," the lawsuit says. "DCFS also fails to provide sufficient educational services." The department often places children in group homes or institutions where they face significant risks of violence carried out by staff members or older children, according to the complaint. The foster children often find themselves placed in locations such as hotels, hospitals and department offices, the lawsuit says. "We brought the lawsuit because the significant problems in the Louisiana child welfare system have been well known to state officials for many years and simply have not been addressed," Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood's executive director, said in an email to the Louisiana Record. "Children in the state continue to suffer. That is why we believe the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that children in Louisiana receive the protections and benefits to which the federal Constitution and laws entitle them." The department has been aware of safety and staffing issues at the DCFS since former Gov. Bobby Jindal cut the agency's workforce by 33% and its budget by 50% between the years 2008 and 2016, according to the lawsuit. "The complaint points to data that show overwhelming caseloads, high placement instability, lack of access to medical care, and rates of child death in the state 50% higher than the national average," a news release published by A Better Childhood states. The lawsuit urges the court to stop the defendants from subjecting the plaintiffs to situations that violate their rights under several federal laws. A written plan for children's treatment, services and needs must be drawn up within 60 days of their entering the foster-care system, the complaint states. "Plaintiffs . . . seek declaratory and injunctive relief against (the) defendants to remedy the harm and risk of harm to thousands of foster children in Louisiana," the lawsuit says. "This lawsuit seeks to have Louisiana's child welfare system brought into compliance with applicable federal law and constitutional standards." [GN] MARK CUBAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for Leave to File Under Seal and permitting them to file under seal the unredacted versions of the Confidential Filing. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0zW7AK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher E. Knight, Esq. Esther E. Galicia, Esq. Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com egalicia@fowler-white.com atifford@fowler-white.com - and - Paul C. Huck, Jr., Esq. LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ PLLC 334 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 441-2299 Facsimile: (305) 441-8849 E-mail: paul@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com - and - Stephen A. Best, Esq. Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq. Daniel L. Sachs, Esq. Jonathan d. White, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP 601 Thirteenth Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 536-1755 E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com dsachs@brownrudnick.com jwhite@brownrudnick.com MASSACHUSETTS: OKs $1-B Deal for Community-Based Nursing Homes -------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Henreckson of McKnights Long-Term Care reports that Massachusetts settled a class action lawsuit on April 16, 2024, promising to invest $1 billion to enable 2,400 nursing home residents to move to community and residential settings over the next eight years. Six disabled nursing home residents initially filed the class action suit in October 2022 in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They argued that a lack of state resources had trapped them in nursing homes despite their wishes to return to community-based care settings. Similar lawsuits have been in motion across the country in recent years, with residents and their advocates consistently citing the Americans with Disabilities Act as guaranteeing them the right to receive care in the least restrictive environment. Under the terms of this week's settlement, the state will further invest in community-based care, including creating new residential care settings and providing rent vouchers for disabled residents. The state also will create "Community Transition Liaison Program" teams to advise nursing home residents on their living options — with special accommodations made for residents struggling with mental illness. Every Massachusetts nursing home that participates in Medicaid will have one of these CTLP teams assigned to it, according to court documents. The state currently invests nearly $6 billion in community-based care annually. A potential blueprint Reactions to the settlement from policymakers, providers and consumer advocates have been generally positive. Massachusetts officials were optimistic about the increased investment into community-based care in an official report released by the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. "This settlement is a natural next step forward as our administration expands community living options available for individuals residing in nursing facilities," said Gov. Maura Healey (D). "We continue to look for opportunities to reduce disparities and inequities for older adults and individuals with disabilities and mental illness in Massachusetts." The agreement should be "a blueprint for other states," according to Regan Bailey, litigation director for consumer advocate group Justice in Aging. Provider leaders on April 17, 2024 affirmed their commitment to providing safe discharges to community care. "Massachusetts has and remains the entity solely responsible for determining clinical admission into a nursing facility for long-term care," Tara Gregorio, president of the Massachusetts Senior Care Association told McKnight's. "We continue to support and collaborate on efforts to ensure residents have access to safe discharges to the community." Gregorio also noted that nursing homes remain a vital part of the care continuum and asked that the state ensure they are given adequate state investment. "Nursing facilities provide a vital service to frail elders and disabled individuals who can no longer be cared for safely at home," she said. "It is critical that these core services be fully funded to ensure quality resident care and to allow us to continue to invest in our dedicated and diverse workforce." [GN] MEDDATA LLC: Settles Class Action for $7MM Over GitHub Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACA International reports that in a landmark case concerning data security and privacy, revenue cycle management firm MedData has reached a $7 million settlement in response to a class action lawsuit stemming from a significant breach, according to a recent article from Bank Info Security. The incident, in which an employee inadvertently exposed the health and personal information of approximately 136,000 individuals on GitHub, underscores the critical importance of robust cybersecurity measures in today's digital landscape. The settlement, recently approved by a Texas federal court, marks the resolution of the last of five proposed federal class actions filed against MedData following the breach. The agreement requires MedData, now part of Elevate Patient Financial Solutions, to provide affected individuals with compensation and enhanced cybersecurity practices. Under the terms of the settlement, class members have the option to choose from two payment tiers. The first tier covers documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the breach, while the second tier offers compensation for minimal affirmative actions taken in response to the incident. Additionally, all affected individuals are eligible to receive 36 months of complimentary health data/fraud monitoring services and $1 million in fraud and medical identity theft insurance coverage. In response to the breach, MedData is mandated to implement and maintain an enhanced cybersecurity program for two years. This program includes annual cybersecurity testing and training, robust monitoring and auditing for data security issues, data encryption, access controls, annual penetration testing, a data deletion policy, and a monitored internal whistleblowing mechanism. While the settlement appears to be "hard-fought" by the plaintiffs and class members' counsel, "it must be kept in mind that these incidents involve non-ephemeral sensitive information rather than payment card data, etc.," said cybersecurity attorney Steven Teppler of the law firm Mandelbaum Barrett PC, who is not involved in the MedData case. "Victims may be working to fix identity compromise events for years to come." Additionally, Teppler notes that the settlement does not explicitly address the implementation of secure software development policies, which could be crucial in preventing similar incidents in the future. Teppler emphasizes the need for comprehensive risk assessment efforts, policy development, and enforcement governing internal coding efforts, including the use of third-party or open-source software. The breach, discovered in December 2020 by independent security researcher Jelle Ursem, exposed a vast array of sensitive information, including patient names, addresses, Social Security numbers, diagnoses, and health insurance policy numbers. The data remained accessible on GitHub for at least 13 months before being removed. Notably, several health care clients of MedData were affected by the breach, including Memorial Hermann, Aspirus Health Plan, OSF HealthCare, and the University of Chicago Medical Center. The incident has highlighted the broader implications of data breaches within the health care sector, emphasizing the need for stringent security measures to safeguard patient information. While MedData has not commented on the settlement, a spokesperson for Elevate, the firm's parent company, clarified that the incident occurred under different ownership and that the responsible employee had left the company prior to its acquisition. [GN] METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Court Certifies Class in Paulino-Santos Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luz PAULINO-SANTOS, Michael RING, Betty VEGA, and NEW YORK INTEGRATED NETWORK, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, John LIEBER, and Richard DAVEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03471-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order certifying class of: "All people who cannot consistently use fixed-route transit (defined as subways and buses operating solely within New York City) because of a disability, and who use Access-A-Ride or would use Access-A-Ride if it had response and travel times more comparable to the MTA's fixed-route transit." The Court also entered an order: -- appointing Lucy "Luz" Paulino-Santos, Betty Vega, and the New York Integrated Network ("NYIN") are appointed representatives for the Class. -- appointing Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C., and New York Law School Legal Services, Inc., a counsel for the Class. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 58. On Feb. 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action (the "Proposed Class Representatives") filed a class certification motion on behalf of themselves and a putative class consisting of all "Paratransit Users," defined to mean "[a]ll people who cannot consistently use fixed-route transit because of a disability, and who use Access-A-Ride or would use Access-A-Ride if it had response and travel times more comparable to the MTA's fixed-route transit,"; The Parties have conferred regarding class certification and have agreed, subject to the approval of the Court, to the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation; Metropolitan is a public benefit corporation responsible for public transportation in the New York City metropolitan area of the U.S. state of New York. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ij5Sdv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maia Goodell, Esq. Emily Bass, Esq. VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C. 111 Broadway, Suite 1505 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 403-7300 E-mail: mgoodell@vladeck.com - and - Britney R. Wilson, Esq. NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 185 West Broadway New York, NY 10013 E-mail: Britney.Wilson@nyls.ed The Defendants are represented by: Gregory F. Laufer, Esq. Tamar Holoshitz, Esq. Kerissa N. Barron, Esq. Matthew Clarida, Esq. PAUL WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: glaufer@paulweiss.com tholoshitz@paulweiss.com kbarron@paulweiss.com mclarida@paulweiss.com MONTANA: Faces Class Action Over Refusal to Update Sex Designation ------------------------------------------------------------------ On April 18, 2024, two transgender women filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Montana and various state agencies challenging a 2022 policy that categorically bars transgender people from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. The lawsuit also challenges a policy that makes it impossible for transgender Montanans to update the sex listed on their driver's licenses. In 2021, Montana enacted SB 280, a law that only allows for changes in sex designation on birth certificates "on receipt of a court order indicating that the sex of a person has been changed by surgical procedure." Two transgender people challenged the law in state court which soon issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing SB 280. Ignoring the court, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) issued an emergency rule in 2022, which it would later convert to a permanent rule, implementing a total ban on changes to sex designations on birth certificates. The lawsuit filed in state court challenges that 2022 policy, as well as a subsequently-adopted policy and practice of the Motor Vehicle Division to no longer allow changes to the sex designations on driver's licenses. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP, also seek a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of these regulations, policies, and practices. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, says, "After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, is forcing me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I am being forced to use a birth certificate that is inaccurate and that places me at risk of discrimination and harassment whenever I have to present it. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male." "Once again the State of Montana has chosen to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans," said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. "Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where Courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans." "Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity violates their right to privacy and is unjust discrimination and unconstitutionally compelled speech," said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. The state has repeatedly tried to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity, and we'll continue to fight this baseless policy until no transgender person is denied this fundamental right." [GN] MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Ovando Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACINTO GOMEZ OVANDO and MARIA DEL CARMEN PERALTA BAEZA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC. and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF NORTH CAROLINA CORP., Case No. 7:23-cv-00004-M-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting the following relief: (1) conditional certification of this action as a representative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form in both English and Spanish; (3) an updated production of names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of all putative FLSA plaintiffs/R. 23 class members; (4) ability to email and/or text message the proposed Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail; (5) certification of this action as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims; and (6) appointing named Plaintiffs Gomez Ovando and Peralta Baeza as class representatives and the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel. Mountaire is a U.S. chicken producer operating four processing plants in Delaware and North Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6gfRr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jerry H. Walters, Jr., Esq. Michael S. McIntosh, Esq. Laura A. Saracina, Esq. Joshua B. Waxman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 620 South Tryon Street, Suite 950 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 972-7013 Facsimile: (704) 333-4005 E-mail: jwalters@littler.com mmcintosh@littler.com lsaracina@littler.com jwaxman@littler.com NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces D.P & F.C. Disability Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- D.P. and F.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC d/b/a Universal Studios Hollywood; UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD. d/b/a Universal Orlando Resort; and UNIVERSAL CITY TRAVEL PARTNERS d/b/a Universal Parks & Resorts Vacations, Case No. 2:24-cv-02889 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of discriminating against disabled customers by failing to implement policies and practices respecting the civil rights and needs of disabled individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate Universal-branded theme parks and resort properties around the world, including Universal Studios Hollywood in California and Universal Orlando Resort in Florida. Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities who were allegedly deprived of their right to meaningfully access and enjoy the services, facilities, and privileges offered by Defendants at the mentioned theme parks due to Defendants' disability access policy called the "Attraction Assistance Program". Under this policy, all disabled park guests are required to use the IBCCES system to request accommodations at Defendants' amusement parks prior to their visits. The process involves gathering and submitting sensitive medical documentation, says the suit. The Plaintiffs allege that such a policy denies disabled individuals full and equal access to Defendants' services, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California's Disabled Persons Act. NBC Universal Media is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com NEW YORK, NY: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.T. et al v. The New York City Department of Education et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09826-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying in fully briefing Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction filed March 08, 2024, until the Court rules on Defendants' motion to dismiss for, inter alia, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of Article III standing. The Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq ("IDEA") arguing that eight identified students are entitled to a right to a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") until their 22nd birthdays. A copy of the Defendants motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=quA8mx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jordan Doll, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212)-356-2624 E-mail: jdoll@law.nyc.gov NIO INC: Discovery Ongoing on Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- NIO Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2024, that discovery is currently ongoing with regards to "In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 1:19-cv-01424, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Between March and July 2019, several securities class action lawsuits were filed against us, certain of our directors and officers, our underwriters in the IPO and our process agent. Some of these actions have been withdrawn, transferred, consolidated or dismissed. Abovementioned action commenced during the aforementioned time period remains pending, under the caption. The plaintiffs in this case allege, in sum and substance, that the company's statements in the registration statement and/or other public statements were false or misleading and in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws. The court denied its motion to dismiss in August 2021, and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in August 2023. Nio Inc. is a Chinese multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Shanghai, specializing in designing and developing electric vehicles. It conduct operations in China primarily through subsidiaries and is a holding company with no material operations of its own. NORLITE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 1, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill, et al., v. Norlite, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00439 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 16, 2021), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order setting scheduling order deadlines as follows: -- Completion of written discovery and document July 15, 2024 production due: -- Completion of fact witness depositions due: Aug. 15, 2024 -- Plaintiff's Disclosure of Experts Sept. 15, 2024 (class certification issues) due: -- Deadline to depose Plaintiffs' Experts: Oct. 15, 2024 -- Defendants' Disclosure of Experts Nov. 15, 2024 (class certification issues) due: -- Deadline to Depose Defendants' Experts Dec. 15, 2024 Due: -- Motion for Class Certification due: Jan. 1, 2025 The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.[CC] NORTH BROTHERS: Fraud Suit Dismissed, Arbitration Agreement Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ BridgeTower Media Newswires of Michigan Lawyers Weekly reports that a class action complaint accusing a car dealership of fraudulent business practices was properly dismissed by a trial court because of an agreement to arbitrate in the parties' lease agreement, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held. After leasing a car from North Brothers Ford, Inc., Richard Emerzian filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that the dealership had customers sign blank pricing sheets when purchasing vehicles, only to later fill in inflated prices for after-market add-ons -- for example, hundreds of dollars for a $50 wheel lock, or $359 for $170 floor mats. The dealership moved to dismiss based on a provision in the lease agreement stating that either party may select arbitration to settle any claim related to the lease agreement. Emerzian objected, arguing the provision did not apply because his claims were based on the price sheet, not on the lease agreement. The Wayne County Circuit Court disagreed and granted the dealership's motion for dismissal. Emerzian appealed, but the appeals court affirmed the decision. "In this case, the plain language of the arbitration provision suggests that plaintiff's claims fell within the agreement," the judges wrote. "Plaintiff's claims emanated from the amount that he was charged to lease the vehicle, mainly the allegedly inflated costs on the price sheet. Plaintiff did not agree to pay any amount, including the costs listed on the price sheet, until he signed the lease agreement." It was likely that Emerzian's claims could not "be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship at issue," and thus were subject to the arbitration clause as claims "related to" the lease agreement, the judges said. Emerzian told the court that the lease agreement and the price sheet constituted two different contracts with two different purposes. "However, the price sheet does not seem to be a contract, but more of a breakdown of the price of the leased vehicle with added costs such as the floor mats and wheel locks," the court pointed out. "There was no provision for acceptance of what was offered, and plaintiff promised no consideration on this form. The form merely indicated recognition of the invoice price of the vehicle and the price of fees and add-on accessories." The court also rejected Emerzian's concerns that the dealership failed to retain the right to invoke the arbitration provision in the lease agreement when it assigned the deal to a third party. " [T]he parties agreed that plaintiff would lease a vehicle, that claims against defendant related to the lease would be subject to arbitration, and that the lease agreement was assigned," the judges wrote. "Because plaintiff's claims against defendant were related to his lease of the vehicle under the agreement, the entire agreement between the parties should be considered, and defendant should be able to enforce the terms, even though all financial rights under the lease had been assigned." Judges Mark J. Cavanagh, Kathleen Jansen and Allie Greenleaf Maldonado issued the published per curiam decision in Emerzian v. North Bros. Ford Inc. (MiLW 07-107816). [GN] NORTH CAROLINA: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE 1, et al., v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00017 (M.D.N.C., Filed Jan 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time to move for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs' deadline for filing a motion for class determination shall be 90 days from the date upon which the parties file their Rule 26(f) report in this action. The nature of suit states Civil Rights Violation. The North Carolina Department of Public Safety is an umbrella agency that carries out many of the state's law enforcement, emergency response and homeland security functions.[CC] NOVA HOME: Savinova Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA, et. al., v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, et. al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for class certification. On March 29, 2024, the Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Based on the caselaw and argument, the Plaintiffs posit that the Court should certify the class and order Defendants to promptly produce the schedules (including client names) and pay records for all the remaining 88 live-in caregivers on the original lists who worked for both companies. The Defendants should also produce lists of all live-in caregivers who joined either company since the original lists were produced in January 2022. If the two lists show additional overlap of employees, the Defendants should be ordered to promptly produce the schedules (including client names) and pay records for the additional employees. Once, the records are processed, the Plaintiffs will report back to the Court on the actual number of putative class members, at which time the Court could simply decertify the class if numerosity is not met. Alternatively, the Court could reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining the same information in support of a renewed motion for certification Nova offers a wide range of home health aide services to individuals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uvo3gd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com - and - Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com OKLAHOMA: Court Strike Gunter's Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GUNTER, AUSTIN GUNTER; and AARON VANBUSKIRK; v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00706-SLP (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott Palk entered an order: 1. Denying the Plaintiff Melissa Gunter's motion for relief from Judgment and Order; 2. Denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen and grant extension of time to appeal; and 3. Striking Ms. Gunter's motion to certify class. Ms. Gunter's motion for relief from judgment and order is denied as procedurally improper, the court says. The Court also says that "even if the Plaintiffs are correct that they did not receive the Order and Judgment until the day their Notice of Appeal was filed—March 18, 2024 -- their Motion is untimely because it was filed on April 3, 2024, 16 days after the Plaintiffs contend, they received notice, which was two days after the statutory deadline." On Dec. 19, 2023, the Court entered an Order dismissing the action for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 despite the Court's prior Order describing pleading standards in federal court and the deficiencies in the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Court separately entered its Judgment of Dismissal that same day. On Feb. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff Melissa Gunter filed a motion for relief from judgment and order. Oklahoma is a landlocked state in the South Central region of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mS8pln at no extra charge.[CC] OPTILINE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Astu Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER ASTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTILINE ENTERPRISES, LLC; TOMMY BOLDUC; and MICHAEL BOLDUC, Defendants, Case No. (Mass. Cmmw., Suffolk Cty., April 9, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Astu was employed by the Defendants as a manager. OPTILINE ENTERPRISES, LLC is a construction company which acts as a subcontractor for larger entities to, amongst other things, put up drywall, framing, and gypsum floors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Patton, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 Email: mdp@mass-legal.com ORRICK & HERRINGTON: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04089-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 17, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order: (a) finding that the proposed settlement is within the range of final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement; (b) approving the form and substance of the proposed notice, as well as the proposed methods of disseminating notice to the Settlement Class; (c) scheduling a date for the final fairness hearing and relevant deadlines in connection therewith; and (d) such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. After multiple days of long mediation discussions, the Parties reached a global settlement to resolve this consolidated class action litigation. Under the Agreement, Orrick will pay $8,000,000.00 into a Settlement Fund. Importantly, the Settlement Fund is non-reversionary, so that no part of it will ever revert to Orrick, and Settlement Class Members who complete the Claim Form are entitled to cash payments of: up to $2,500.00 for out-of-pocket expenses, $7,500.00 for extraordinary losses, $25.00 per hour for up to five hours of attested time (for a total of $125.00), an alternative cash payment of $75.00, and $150.00 for California Subclass Members' California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") claims, subject to pro rata reduction or increase, depending on the number of claims. Settlement Class Members are also entitled to seek three years of additional credit monitoring. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Parties have agreed, for the purposes of the Settlement only, to the certification of the Settlement Class, defined as follows: "All residents of the United States who were sent notice that their personal information was accessed, stolen, or compromised as a result of the Data Breach. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Orrick, any Entity in which Orrick has a controlling interest, and Orrick’s partners, officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff, and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. Orrick is an international law firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HhQSaJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: WBF@federmanlaw.com OWEN FARICY: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Taylor Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OWEN FARICY MOTOR COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00957 (D. Colo., April 9, 2024) seeks unpaid wages and damages for Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid technician from July 5, 2023 until the termination of his employment on or about February 7, 2024. The Plaintiff and other technicians regularly worked more than 40 hours each week but Defendant allegedly failed to pay them overtime premiums at one and one-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked above 40 in individual work weeks. Further, Defendant allegedly improperly applied a piece-rate compensation as it failed to follow the standard process of determining the regular rate of pay for him and similarly situated employees, says the Plaintiff. Based in Colorado Springs, CO, Owen Faricy Motor Company is engaged in the automotive dealership business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Andrew E. Swan, Esq. LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 E-mail: sengelson@ll.law mkuhn@ll.law aswan@ll.law PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Continued to June 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for administrative relief seeking further revisions to the Court's relief order pursuant to L.R. 7-11. The Court also orders as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' May 20, 2024 deadline to file their motion for class certification ("MCC") is continued to Monday, June 3, 2024. 2. The Defendant's July 8, 2024 deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, July 22, 2024. 3. The Plaintiffs' Aug. 11, 2024 deadline to file their reply to the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, Aug. 26, 2024. 4. The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZIVV80 at no extra charge.[CC] PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gay Continued to June 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GAY, individually, and on behalf of the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees similarly situated; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for administrative relief seeking further revisions to the Court's relief order pursuant to L.R. 7-11. The Court also orders as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' May 20, 2024 deadline to file their motion for class certification ("MCC") is continued to Monday, June 3, 2024. 2. The Defendant's July 8, 2024 deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, July 22, 2024. 3. The Plaintiffs' Aug. 11, 2024 deadline to file their reply to the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, Aug. 26, 2024. 4. The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Steel is rebar fabricator. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XzYLQO at no extra charge.[CC] PANERA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Grain Bagel Flats -------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Panera has misled consumers about its sprouted grain bagel flats since they are made mostly with "less-healthy, non-sprouted grains" and contain only trace amounts of their key advertised ingredient. The 19-page Panera lawsuit claims the fast-casual restaurant chain has deceived consumers into believing sprouted grains are the exclusive or primary source of grain in the bagels at issue. The filing contends that consumers would not have bought Panera's sprouted grain bagel flats, or would have paid less for them, had they known the bagels consisted mostly of "conventional, non-sprouted grains," with very little actual sprouted grains. Per the complaint, "sprouted grain blend" is listed last in the Panera Sprouted Grain Bagel Flats ingredients list, meaning the item consists of more salt and yeast than actual sprouted grain flour. Specifically, the bagel flats likely consist of less than 0.4 percent actual sprouted grains, the case calculates. "As such, the advertising of the Product as 'sprouted grain' is false and deceptive," the lawsuit states. The suit contends that the impression that the Panera bagel flats have sprouted grains as their main source of grain is critical to consumers when making a purchasing decision. In particular, sprouted grains contain fewer starches, have lower carbohydrate content, are easier to digest, and have a lower gylcemic index in comparison to regular grains, the case notes. "In contrast, the processed wheat and white flour, primarily used in the Product by Panera, is stripped of its nutritional components, including fiber, vitamins, and minerals, thus offering minimal nutritional value," according to the suit. The lawsuit looks to cover California residents who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought a sprouted grain bagel flat from Panera. Are you owed unclaimed settlement money? Check out our class action rebates page full of open class action settlements. [GN] PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 17, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE GUERRA, et al., v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL INC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01933-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a revised scheduling order. Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure Deadline/Hearing Date Class-certification non-expert discovery Nov. 22, 2024 Completion: Class-certification expert discovery Dec. 20, 2024 Completion: Class-certification motion filed: Jan. 17, 2025 Opposition due: Feb. 21, 2025 Reply due: Mar. 28, 2025 Hearing/further case-management conference: Apr. 17, 2025 Non-expert discovery completion date: July 25, 2025 Expert Disclosures: July 25, 2025 Expert Discovery Completion Date: Sept. 26, 2025 Last Hearing Date for Dispositive Motions Oct. 30, 2025 Final pretrial conference: Feb. 5, 2026 Trial: Feb. 17, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fG4cQL at no extra charge.[CC] PATINA ORLANDO: Plaintiffs Must Move for Class Cert Bid by June 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHYANA COSME and TIMOTHY GOCKLIN, v. PATINA ORLANDO, LLC and WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00796-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert Norway entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's unopposed motion to stay discovery and class certification briefing. The Plaintiffs may move for class certification on or before June 14, 2024. The parties may move for another extension of time if such relief is needed once that deadline approaches. The Court has taken a "preliminary peek" at the Defendant Patina Orlando, LLC's Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint and cannot say that the Motions to Dismiss are "clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive." On Aug. 31, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against The Defendants, alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. section 760.01, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000. Then on Sept. 20, 2023, the Court entered the Case Management and Scheduling Order, which set the deadline to move for class certification as on or before April 19, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kfSiuR at no extra charge.[CC] PATINA ORLANDO: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert. Briefing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHYANA COSME, TIMOTHY GOCKLIN, and The Class They Seek to Represent, v. PATINA ORLANDO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company d/b/a TUTTO ITALIA RISTORANTE and VIA NAPOLI REISTORANTE E PIZZERIA And WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. d/b/a EPCOT, Case No. 6:23-cv-00796-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying discovery and class certification briefing until Patina's motion to dismiss or alternatively strike, Disney's motion to dismiss, and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file 4th Ac are resolved. If the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend to file a 4th AC is denied, and both Patina and Disney's Motions to Dismiss are granted in full, the entire case will be dismissed, and class certification briefing and discovery will be unnecessary. If the Motions to Dismiss are granted in part, or if Patina's Alternative Motion to Strike is granted, the scope of discovery could be narrowed and class certification briefing could be unnecessary. Therefore, the Court should stay discovery and class certification briefing until it has decided on the pending motions. On May 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint to correct a filing error where the wrong defendant had been named. On Sept. 20, 2023, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order. On Sept. 29, 2023, Patina and Disney moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3jI24a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Henson, Esq. Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32802 The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 246-8440 Facsimile: (407) 246-8441 E-mail: Stephanie.adler-paindiris@jacksonlewis.com - and - Paul Scheck, Esq. Mary Ruth Houston, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 PERION NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Perion Network Ltd. (NASDAQ: PERI) investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: Feb. 9, 2021-April 5, 2024 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 17, 2024 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/peri Contact An Attorney Now: PERI@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Perion Network Ltd. (PERI) Securities Fraud Class Action: Digital advertiser Perion Network and most senior executives were recently hit with an investor class action, following the company's announcement of disastrous preliminary Q1 2024 results and updated full year 2024 guidance. The suit, which is brought on behalf of damaged investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Perion common stock during the period from Feb. 9, 2021 through Apr. 5, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleges claims of securities fraud stemming from Defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed that: (1) Perion's search advertising business was not a reliable and significant growth driver and was in fact in decline; (2) Perion's long-term relationship with Microsoft and search services agreement would not provide stability for Perion's search advertising business; (3) there was an increased risk of Microsoft acting to unilaterally change its advertising pricing and mechanisms to the detriment of Perion while the search services agreement was in place; (4) Perion's AI technology and Microsoft's investment in ChatGPT would not protect or grow Perion's search advertising revenue; and (5) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Perion's search advertising business and related financial results, growth, and prospects. The truth about Perion's search advertising business emerged on Apr. 8, 2024, when Perion announced disappointing preliminary Q1 2024 results and slashed its FY guidance. The company revealed that "[i]n the first quarter of 2024, Perion experienced a decline in search advertising activity, attributable to changes in advertising pricing and mechanisms implemented by Microsoft Bing in its Search Distribution marketplace." Perion also revealed that, "[t]hese adjustments led to a reduction in Revenue Per Thousand Impressions (RPM) for both Perion and other Microsoft Bing distribution partners" and "contributed to decreased search volume." The Company also disclosed that for the full 2024 year, it now expects revenue in the range of $590 million to $610 million, down from the prior guidance range of $860 million to $880 million the Company gave on Febr. 7, 2024 On this news, the price of Perion common stock declined by $8.61 per share, or appx. 40%, in a single trading day. "We are investigating whether Perion knowingly concealed adverse changes in its search advertising business," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Perion and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your losses now » If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked questions about the Perion case and our investigation, read more » Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Perion should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email PERI@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] PERION NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Perion Network Ltd. (NASDAQ: PERI) common stock between February 9, 2021 and April 5, 2024. Perion is a global technology company that provides digital advertising solutions to brands, agencies, and publishers in North America, Europe, and internationally. 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 Perion Network Ltd. (PERI) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Perion's search advertising business was not a reliable and significant growth driver and was in fact in decline; (2) Perion's long-term relationship with Microsoft and search services agreement would not provide stability for Perion's search advertising business; (3) there was an increased risk of Microsoft acting to unilaterally change its advertising pricing and mechanisms to the detriment of Perion while the search services agreement was in place; and (4) Perion's AI technology and Microsoft's investment in ChatGPT would not protect or grow Perion's search advertising revenue. When the truth was revealed, Perion's common stock declined by $8.61 per share, or approximately 40%, from $21.11 per share on April 5, 2024, to close at $12.50 on April 8, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Perion Network Ltd. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by June 17, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Perion Network Ltd. 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] PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Burns Charest has filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that shale oil producers have conspired to engage in price fixing of petroleum-based fuel products. The lawsuit, Foos v. Permian Resources Corp., alleges that between 2017 and 2023 oil producers met regularly with each other and with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to coordinate their collective oil output and maintain higher prices for retail gasoline. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico and related news coverage can be viewed on Law.com. [GN] POLISH ON PEARL: Seek to Stay Class Cert Bid Briefing, Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEXIS LEE, v. POLISH ON PEARL, INC., and AMANDA VAN'T HUL, Case No. 1:23-cv-03343-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: -- staying any briefing and ruling related to Plaintiff's certification motion until an Answer is filed, -- ruling on the upcoming Motion to Stay this matter, and -- issuing a Scheduling Order (to include briefing on Plaintiff's Certification Motion). Additionally, it is the undersigned's belief the Court struck or intended to strike the upcoming Scheduling Conference in this matter during the April 4, 2024, Status Conference because of the pending Motion to Stay and Defendants' answer or other pleading to the Complaint not yet filed and by setting a May 16, 2024, Status Conference, but it was not reflected in the Status Conference Minute Order. The Defendants accordingly request the Court vacate the Scheduling Conference set for April 25, 2024 until it can be rescheduled at the time of the May 16, 2024, Status Conference. The case was filed by the Plaintiff on Dec. 19, 2023, against the Defendants alleging various wage and hour claims under Federal, State, and City laws. On Jan. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her motion for certification before the Defendants were served with the instant lawsuit, and prior to any answer, Scheduling Conference, or Scheduling Order. On March 14, 2024, the Court granted Defendants' motion for extension of Time to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint and set an Answer deadline for April 18, 2024. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zWxP0e at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen B. Rotter, Esq. THE WORKPLACE COUNSEL 1401 Lawrence Avenue, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 625-6400 E-mail: stephen@theworkplacecounsel.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Tobin Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK TOBIN, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05061-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order granting in part, and denying in part Defendant's motion, as follows: -- The Plaintiff's FAL, UCL, and Quasi-Contract claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to plead facts showing that the Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law; -- The Plaintiff's Breach of Express Warranty claim is dismissed because the Plaintiff fails to plead the appropriate measure of damages; -- The Plaintiff's CLRA claim remains, because the claim is not preempted and the Plaintiff plausibly alleges that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the Representations. The Plaintiff may file an amended pleading, if it so chooses, by May 1, 2024. The Court orders the parties to appear for a Case Management Conference on June 21, 2024. The parties shall submit an updated Joint Case Management Statement no later than June 14, 2024. The Plaintiff brings the following claims on behalf of himself and a putative class who purchased the Product or other products bearing allegedly similar labels: (1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; (2) violations of California's False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code sections 17500, et seq. ("FACL claim"); (3) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code. The Plaintiff includes in his definition of "Products" Defendant's DayQuil Severe Honey Cold & Flu and DayQuil and NyQuil Kids Honey Cold & Cough + Congestion. He also includes labels for the same Products that state the Products are "flavored with real honey." Procter is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vza8sZ at no extra charge.[CC] R&G BRENNER: Cinar Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cinar v. R&G Brenner Income Tax, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01362 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order referring the motion for class certification to Mag. Judge Cho. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). R&G Brenner is a financial services company providing tax preparation services in New York.[CC] RESONETICS LLC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER REYES, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. RESONETICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01552-RBM-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order extending the discovery and the class certification deadlines by 120 days respectively. In the interest of efficiency and to conserve resources, to allow the Parties to engage in the Belaire-West process and thereafter resolve discovery issues, and participate in mediation scheduled for May 22, 2024, the Parties request that the Court extend the discovery and class certification motion deadlines by 120 days. The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against Resonetics on July 19, 2023, in San Diego Superior Court and Resonetics removed to this Court on Aug. 23, 2023. The Class Action Complaint asserts wage claims on behalf of the Defendant's current and former employees. On Sept. 1, 2023, the Parties conveyed their intent for early private mediation and began efforts to select a mediator. On March 26, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for a Protective Order. The Parties have also initiated the Belaire West process with the services of Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions and the opt-out notices were mailed on April 4, 2024 and provide the putative class members with 30 days (up to May 4, 2024) to opt out of disclosure. Resonetics provides laser technology services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WCpxCi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 400 N Brand Blvd 7th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (855) 372-4693 The Defendants are represented by: Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq. Lana B. Nassar, Esq. Lisa Xu, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 E-mail: Guillermo.Escobedo@jacksonlewis.com Lana.nassar@jacksonlewis.com Lisa.Xu@jacksonlewis.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:20-cv-01008-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting final approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement, and -- certifying the Class defined in the Agreement for settlement. Resurgent manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d9KXiZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz Kevin Tucker, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com - and - Eugene D. Frank, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C. 3202 McKnight East Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Telephone: (412) 366-4276 Facsimile: (412) 366-4305 E-mail: efrank@edf-law.com REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Jurdi Data Privacy Suit ---------------------------------------------- LILLIAN JURDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, a New York limited liability company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08861 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant Revlon's alleged use of a TikTok tracing process that allowed it to identify customers visiting its website, https://www.revlonsanz.com. The Defendant allegedly installed on its website software developed by TikTok to learn the location, source, and identity of website visitors. The Plaintiff and all others who visited Revlon's website were allegedly subjected to a fingerprinting and de-anonymization process using the TikTok software without their express or implied consent. The Plaintiff claims that the TikTok software is a trap and trace device, the use of which is prohibited under the California Trap and Trace Law which is part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Revlon Consumer Products LLC sells cosmetics and hair treatment products and is based in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Matthew J. Smith, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Facsimile: (310) 566-9886 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com matthew@taulersmith.com RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Misleads Investors, Class Action Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Rivian Automotive, Inc. ("Rivian" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RIVN) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of Califorina, and docketed under 24-cv-03269, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian securities between March 1, 2023 and February 21, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian securities during the Class Period, you have until June 18, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Rivian, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles and accessories. The Company sells its products directly to customers in the consumer and commercial markets. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Rivian had overstated demand for its products, as well as its ability to withstand negative, near-term macroeconomic impacts; (ii) accordingly, Rivian's business was experiencing reduced demand and increased customer cancellations as a result of, inter alia, high interest rates; (iii) as a result, Rivian's order bank had significantly deteriorated; (iv) all the foregoing was likely to, and did, negatively impact the Company's anticipated earnings and vehicle production targets for 2024; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 21, 2024, Rivian announced its fourth quarter and full year 2023 financial results. Among other items, Rivian announced that it expected to produce 57,000 vehicles in 2024, significantly lower than analyst expectations of 80,000 vehicles. The Company further forecasted an adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization loss of $2.7 billion for full year 2024, compared to analyst expectations of $2.59 billion, and announced plans to cut 10% of salaried staff, citing economic uncertainty. On the subsequent earnings call to discuss these results, Rivian's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Robert J. Scaringe, revealed that "historically high interest rates . . . ha[ve] negatively impacted demand" and "[o]ur order bank has notably reduced overtime . . . along with the impact of cancellations due to both the macroenvironment and [various] customer factors" such as "delivery timing, location of order, monthly payments, and customer readiness." On this news, Rivian's stock price fell $3.94 per share, or 25.6%, to close at $11.45 per share on February 22, 2024. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tolbert Bid for Class Cert. Terminated ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Courtney Tolbert v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01450-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order directing the Clerk to terminate the motion for class certification and the request for dismissal. Rocket is an American mortgage lender. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=buEyDl at no extra charge.[CC] RTX CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks to Seal Class Certification Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARAH KYE BOROZNY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RTX CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order sealing its Class Certification Reply, Daubert Opposition, and the unredacted Exhibits. The Plaintiffs move to seal unredacted versions of its Class Certification Reply, Daubert Opposition, and certain Exhibits as they are subject to the Amended Protective Order. The Exhibits consist of documents exchanged between the parties in discovery that certain Defendants have designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," as well as deposition transcripts subject to confidentiality designations by one or more Defendants. According to the Amended Protective Order, Plaintiffs must treat the Exhibits as designated unless and until the Court rules otherwise. RTX is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hqaajz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Manisha M. Sheth, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. Thomas Lepri, Esq. Daniel F. Loud, Esq. Justin Reinheimer, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com danielloud@quinnemanuel.com justinreinheimer@quinnemanuel.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Johnny M. Shaw, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com rvandermeulen@dicellolevitt.com mperez@dicellolevitt.com jshaw@dicellolevitt.com - and - Joseph D. Garrison, Esq. Stephen J. Fitzgerald, Esq. Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq. Amanda M. DeMatteis, Esq. GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C. 405 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 777-4425 E-mail: jgarrison@garrisonlaw.com sfitzgerald@garrisonlaw.com jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com adematteis@garrisonlaw.com - and - David A. Slossberg, Esq. Erica Oates Nolan, Esq. Timothy C. Cowan, Esq. HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC 135 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 Telephone: (203) 877-8000 E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com ENolan@hssklaw.com TCowan@hssklaw.com RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Suit Seeks Class Status ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY), ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the following proposed class: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan at any time from Oct. 1, 2015 to the date Russell was removed as the Plan's investment manager" -- appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative for the class and the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiff filed this action in the Western District of Washington on June 7, 2021. On March 15, 2022, the Court transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida, which requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before proceeding in federal court. On June 30, 2022, the Court granted the parties' request to stay all case deadlines while Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies. The Plaintiff brings the motion for class certification to provide participants in the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan the same opportunity for class-wide relief that is routinely granted to plan participants in other cases involving Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) breach of fiduciary duty claims. Russell Investments is a global investment management firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=23nqmR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Ben Bauer, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com bspecht@nka.com bbauer@nka.com SAINT LUKE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Sterilization Procedures ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica McMaster and Sam Hartle of KSHB reports that lawyers representing a Kansas City-area family filed a class action lawsuit last week against Saint Luke's Hospital over allegations the hospital failed in its sterilization procedures. The lawsuit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court on behalf of William Berberich and his wife Barbara Berberich, alleges the hospital failed to perform "proper sterilization procedures" in a surgery on William in April 2022. The lawsuit says William developed complications that required a follow-up surgery. Attorneys believe other patients may have been harmed by the hospital's alleged failure to follow procedures in 2022 and 2023. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City released a statement morning to KSHB 41 News. "Saint Luke's does not comment on pending litigation," the hospital said in the statement. "Saint Luke's sterile processing team adheres to and follows the standards set by the nation's most reputable governing organizations including the Association of Operating Room Nurses and the Healthcare Sterile Processing Association, the Association of Operating Room Nurses, The Joint Commission (TJC), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS), and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)." The suit comes months after a KSHB 41 I-Team report revealed concerns over the sterilization practices made by the hospital's former Sterile Processing Manager, Elizabeth Bell. [GN] SCOTT SEMPLE: Request to Submit Further Docs in Vega Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vega v. Semple, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00107 (D. Conn., Filed Jan. 25, 2017), the Hon. Judge Maria E. Garcia entered an order denying the request to submit further documents and/or to supplement the record. -- The renewed motion for class certification was filed on Oct. 20, 2023. -- The Defendants filed their opposition brief with exhibits on Dec. 13, 2023. The Court, of its own accord, sought the submission of a discrete number of sealed documents that were not provided to the Court. Those documents were submitted on March 1, 2024. The Court considers the pleadings closed. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Barrera Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.; TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R. SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00018-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows: (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class certification, to the extent that they assert them here, are denied. (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under this Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will be terminated from this action. (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff, with a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff. (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is filed or until further order. (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings deemed appropriate by the Court. In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=StaSW5 at no extra charge.[CC] SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Davis Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.; TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R. SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00050-C (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows: (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class certification, to the extent that they assert them here, are denied. (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under this Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will be terminated from this action. (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff, with a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff. (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is filed or until further order. (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings deemed appropriate by the Court. In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8shwMc at no extra charge.[CC] SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Hendricks Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.; TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R. SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00052-C (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows: (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class certification, to the extent that they assert them here, are denied. (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under this Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will be terminated from this action. (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff, with a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff. (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is filed or until further order. (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings deemed appropriate by the Court. In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CakYrk at no extra charge.[CC] SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Rueda Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.; TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R. SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00051-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows: (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class certification, to the extent that they assert them here, are denied. (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under this Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will be terminated from this action. (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff, with a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff. (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is filed or until further order. (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings deemed appropriate by the Court. In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HtUC7h at no extra charge.[CC] SHARECARE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sharecare, Inc. (NASDAQ: SHCR) between May 10, 2023 and March 28, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sharecare investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Sharecare class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24143 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sharecare lacked adequate internal controls and; (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 18, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24143 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Suit Over Unethical Corporate Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ CP24 reports that Shoppers Drug Mart is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit by current and former franchise owners at the retail chain who allege parent company Loblaw engaged in corporate practices that placed them in an "irredeemable conflict of interest" and put patient care at risk. The suit, which has not yet been certified, was filed at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by Toronto-based law firm Ricketts Harris LLP and lists the plaintiffs as current and former pharmacists, who had their agreements with the company terminated after 2014. In a statement of claim reviewed by CTV News Toronto, the class action alleges that a number of corporate practices introduced by Loblaw after its acquisition of Shoppers Drug Mart in 2014 created "risks to patient safety and pose a significant risk of causing patient harm." Some of those practices, according to the lawsuit, include imposing targets on the volume of "MedsCheck" appointments -- Ontario's medication review service -- and minimizing support staff hours in an effort to increase revenue and decrease costs. The claim notes that Shoppers Drug Mart can and has terminated its contracts with franchise owners who "breach key obligations" or criticize their business decisions. Sivajanan Sivapalan, an Ontario pharmacist and lead plaintiff in the suit, entered an agreement with Shoppers Drug Mart to run a franchise in Beamsville, Ont. in 2011. He subsequently renewed his agreement in 2014, 2017, and 2020. The suit alleges, after Sivapalan "expressed concerns" regarding the corporate practices to Shoppers Drug Mart, his agreement was terminated without reason on Jan. 23, 2023. Moreover, since Shoppers Drug Mart was acquired by Loblaw, franchise owners say they have expressed concerns about the corporate policies and their "increased risk to patient safety." But the claim argues that Shoppers Drug Mart and Loblaw have taken "little to no action" to address the concerns. Following a meeting on March 25, the Ontario College of Pharmacists (OCP) announced a "zero tolerance" policy for business practices that impede pharmacists "ability to deliver effective care" after hearing from "thousands" of pharmacy professionals. In a news release, which does not name any pharmacy retail chain specifically, the OCP said it found the reports of "inappropriate pressure" to conduct MedsCheck appointments "deeply troubling." "The College will consider every tool available to us to address those concerns," the OCP said. To that end, the claim says the OCP policy puts franchise owners at "increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and sanction" from Shoppers Drug Mart. "Our high-level goal is to seek justice for Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees - pharmacists - who have been forced to practice under corporate policies that place them in an irredeemable conflict of interest, which affects their ability to provide safe and effective patient care," lead counsel Andrea Sanche told CTV News Toronto in an email. When asked for comment on the suit, Loblaw told CTV News Toronto that the case has "no merit, whatsoever" and the company plans to "vigorously defend" itself. The class-action is seeking, among other things, damages for Loblaw's alleged breaches of contract with currrent and former franchise owners, the amount of which has yet to be determined. [GN] SLEDGE INC: Larsen Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LARSEN, ET AL., On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, v. SLEDGE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:24-cv-00388-CRC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that: (1) Plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline for filing a motion for Class Certification is granted; and (2) Plaintiffs be permitted to file their Motion for Class Certification at a date to be set at the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. No Party will be prejudiced by granting this extension. Indeed, no defendant has filed their initial pleading and the Plaintiffs have not even obtained service on all Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for enlarging the class certification deadline. Mr. Andrew Larsen, filed the instant action on Feb. 8, 2024, against Sledge, Inc. and It's My Party, Inc. as a "Collective and Class Action Complaint." On Apr. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff amended his complaint, adding several named Plaintiffs and additional Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring collective action claims under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act of 1992 ("DCMWA"), and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law ("DCWPCL"). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lcW95c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com SOUTHSTATE BANK: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fullwood-Demps v. SouthState Bank, N.A., Case No. 6:24-cv-00662 (M.D. Fla., Filed April 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal. SouthState provides consumer, commercial, mortgage, and wealth management solutions.[CC] SPORTSMAN’S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Class Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending February 3, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2024 that the Company faces the Kogut class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On January 22, 2024, Jon Kogut filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "2024 Delaware Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors or officers of the Company and is captioned Kogut v. Bejar, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0055-MTZ (Del. Ch.). In his complaint, Mr. Kogut contends that certain provisions in the Company’s advance notice bylaws (the "Challenged Provisions") are invalid and void and that the members of the Board have breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and maintaining the Challenged Provisions. In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, Mr. Kogut seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses on behalf of the putative class. Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides sporting goods and equipment, bicycles, footwear, electronics, and apparels. Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings serves customers in the United States. [BN] SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in McFadden Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MCFADDEN, DAVID SCHMIDT, and PETER DONCEVIC on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, the SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-02464-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Crabtree entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary settlement approval. The court preliminarily certifies the proposed settlement class and preliminarily approves the parties' Settlement Agreement. The court directs the Defendants to cause the notice to be sent in the form and manner the parties proposed and adopts the Plaintiffs' schedule for related deadlines. The plaintiffs ask the court to certify preliminarily the following settlement class: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan who began receiving a 50%, 75% or 100% JSA or a QPSA on or after Nov. 11, 2016, through and including the Preliminary Approval Date whose benefits had a present value that was less than the present value of the SLA they were offered using the applicable Treasury Assumptions as of each participant's Benefit Commencement Date." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any individuals who are subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing to pay retirement benefit amounts that satisfy the actuarial equivalence requirements of ERISA. Plaintiff Kevin McFadden worked for Sprint for over 26 years and began receiving benefits under the Sprint Retirement Pension Plan in 2017. Plaintiff David Schmidt worked for Sprint for 45 years and began receiving his Plan benefits in 2022. And plaintiff Peter Doncevic worked for Sprint for 19 years and began receiving his Plan benefits in 2021. All three plaintiffs receive joint and survivor annuity (JSA) benefits—with their spouses as beneficiaries—rather than single life annuity (SLA) benefits. Sprint provides long distance telecommunication services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q6cQ7t at no extra charge.[CC] TAMKO BUILDING: Scheduling Conference in Snyder Reset for May 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Snyder et al v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-02630 (D. Kan., Filed Oct. 15, 2019), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order granting motion to re-set scheduling conference. -- Scheduling Conference re-set for: May 6, 2024 The nature of suit states property damage product liability. Tamko manufactures residential and commercial roofing, waterproofing, and composite decking.[CC] TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach ------------------------------------------------------ ABC7 Chicago Digital Team of Eye Witness News reports that a woman filed a class action lawsuit against Target, accusing the retailer of storing customers' biometric data without consent. Arnetta Deans, an Illinois resident, accused the company of violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. The documents also pointed to several social media posts of alleged former Target employees saying the company takes a pictures of customers using surveillance systems without informing customers. As the Illinois law allows, Deans is asking for $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation of BIPA, and $1,000 for every negligent violation of the law. Last year, a similar complaint was filed against Meta, the parent company of Instagram. What is biometric data? Biometrics are unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints. For example, Department of Homeland Security uses biometrics to detect and prevent illegal entry into the country. ABC7 Chicago reached out to Target Corp. for a comment on the class action lawsuit and did not immediately hear back. [GN] TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Halley Due May 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORBIN HALLEY, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:17-cv-00692-JGB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order approving stipulation regarding class certification briefing schedule and hearing. -- Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for May 29, 2024 class certification: -- Target's deadline to file opposition to July 12, 2024 plaintiff’s motion for class certification: -- Plaintiff's deadline to file reply in Aug. 7, 2024: support of motion for class certification: -- Hearing on plaintiff's motion for Sept. 9, 2024 class certification: Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wIz8lD at no extra charge.[CC] TOWANDA COMMUNITY: Filing for Discovery Plan Due May 14 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smtih v. Towanda Community Fire Protection District, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01011 (C.D. Ill., Filed Jan. 11, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification order as follows: -- A discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) shall be filed on or before May 14, 2024. -- If the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the proposed discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a motion to certify class at a stage early in the case. -- The Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system within the other Documents category. -- All counsel must read and be familiar with the standing order attached to this text order prior to their Rule 26(f) planning meeting. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] TWITTER INC: Fact Discovery Deadline in Adler Reset to June 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EITAN ADLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-01788-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties seek to extend the fact discovery and class certification deadlines as follows: -- The fact discovery deadline is hereby reset to June 10, 2024. -- The deadline for filing any motion for class certification is reset to July 12,2024. -- The deadline for opposing class certification shall be Aug. 9, 2024. -- The deadline for filing a reply in support of class certification shall be Aug. 23, 2024. The extension of these deadlines will not impact the trial date set by the Court, which shall remain March 24, 2025. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification is June 7, 2024. The Parties have completed several depositions, but have additional depositions that need to be completed, which have required coordinating the schedules of multiple witnesses and counsel. The Parties have conferred and reached agreement to request that the fact discovery deadline and class certification deadline be be continued for a period of approximately eight weeks in order to allow them to complete all discovery. Twitter is an American social media company based in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MxTYvz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com bmanewith@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Kassia Stephenson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com; brian.berry@morganlewis.com; kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com UNILEVER PLC: Agrees to Settle Suave Benzene Class Suit for $2MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Unilever agreed to pay $2 million to resolve a Suave benzene class action claiming the company sold aerosol deodorants that were contaminated with benzene, a human carcinogen linked to blood cancer. No proof of purchase is required for consumers to benefit from the Suave settlement. The Suave settlement benefits consumers who purchased Suave 24-Hour Protection Powder Aerosol Antiperspirant and Suave 24-Hour Protection Fresh Aerosol Antiperspirant products between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 7, 2024. According to the Suave benzene class action lawsuit, Unilever endangered consumers by selling Suave deodorant products that were contaminated with benzene. Though Unilever recalled these products in March 2022, consumers allegedly may have been exposed to benzene. Benzene exposure is linked to leukemia and other serious health conditions. Unilever is a household product manufacturer that sells products under numerous brands, including Suave. Unilever hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2 million Suave benzene settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Suave benzene settlement, class members can receive a full refund of the price they paid for covered products as long as they can provide proof of purchase with their valid claim. Without proof of purchase, class members can receive $3.29, the average retailed price, per purchased product for up to three products per household. Class members' payments will be reduced by the amount of cash or voucher payments the class member has received or will receive for claims made through the reimbursement recall program. Class member payments may be increased or decreased proportionately so that the total amount paid equals the available Suave settlement funds. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 15, 2024. The final approval hearing for the Suave settlement is scheduled for Sept. 13, 2024. Class members must submit a valid claim form by July 15, 2024, to benefit from the Suave benzene settlement. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased Suave 24-Hour Protection Powder Aerosol Antiperspirant and Suave 24-Hour Protection Fresh Aerosol Antiperspirant products between Jan. 1, 2018 and March 7, 2024 Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Itemized sales receipt, retail score club/loyalty card record or other documents showing the purchase of a covered product, the purchase price and the date and location of purchase Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/15/2024 Case Name Barnes v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06191, in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 09/13/2024 Settlement Website SuaveSettlement.com Claims Administrator Suave Antiperspirant Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 Tel: 888-903-7198 Class Counsel Charles E Schaffer LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut St # 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: +1 877-882-1011 Nick Suciu III MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: 866-252-0878 Jonathan Shub SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge, 200 Barr Harbor Dr #400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: +1 610-477-8380 Max S Roberts BURSOR & FISHER PA 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-330-5512 Jason P Sultzer THE SULTZER LAW GROUP PC 630 Freedom Business Center Drive, 3rd Floor King of Prussia, PA 19406 Tel: 610-365-4722 Defense Counsel James P Muehlberger SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: 816-474-6550 Fax: 816-421-5547 [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rebecca Orr v. United Parcel Service Inc. et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00421-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered an order setting the deadlines for Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Event Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings May 31, 2024 or Add Parties Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion for July 19, 2024 Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for Defendant to File Opposition Aug. 2, 2024 to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply in Aug. 9, 2024 Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report Class Certification Hearing Sept. 6, 2024 Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order, all merits discovery is stayed. The Court further directs the parties to engage in a phased discovery plan. Phase 1 shall consist of pre-certification discovery to determine the scope and size of the putative class, as well as whether Plaintiff is able to meet the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Phase 2 shall consist of merits discovery. The Scheduling Conference scheduled for April 19, 2024, is vacated. United Parcel delivers packages and documents. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JCWywx at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Discrimination Against Black-Farmers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has for decades systematically discriminated against Black farmers, particularly in its administration of federal loan programs. Also named as a defendant is U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom J. Vilsack. The 116-page civil rights suit was filed by two Black sugarcane farmers in Louisiana -- Wenceslaus "June" Provost Jr. and Angela Provost -- who say they were "set up for failure" by the USDA after being repeatedly denied equal access to adequate, timely and feasible farm loans due to their race. The complaint shares that the Provosts, beginning in 2007, were forced to run their farming operation with 25 to 50 percent of the funding white farmers were given for the same number of acres, using USDA loans that often weren't approved until far too late into the growing season to be of real use. Since success in the industry is largely determined by "the whims" of unpredictable weather conditions and market prices, many farmers rely on USDA loan programs to sustain their operations from year to year, the suit explains. Without proper funding from the federal agency, the plaintiffs' 4,000-plus acre farm was "slowly crushed" over less than a decade until they lost nearly everything, the case says. After Mr. Provost's bankruptcy petition was dismissed by the USDA in 2018, the agency foreclosed on the farmer's collateralized assets, including his home, land and farming equipment, the lawsuit states. The Provosts' experience is not unique, the filing contends, citing USDA data that reveals the agency rejected 16 percent of Black farmers who applied for a direct loan in 2022, compared to four percent of white farmers. Records also show that the USDA, between 2006 and 2016, was six times as likely to foreclose on a Black farmer as it was to foreclose on a white farmer, the suit relays. Per the filing, the USDA admits that its disproportionate allocation of funds in favor of white farmers has cost Black farmers "hundreds of billions of dollars." The lawsuit largely blames the USDA's well-documented and longstanding pattern of racial discrimination on its decentralized structure, which grants local officials "broad, almost unfettered discretion" when it comes to the administration of loans, allowing the officials "free rein to discriminate." According to the complaint, the plaintiffs' troubles with the USDA began in 2007, when an official informed Mr. Provost that taking over his family farm meant he would have to take on around $800,000 of his late father's debt. The plaintiff says he didn't want to begin his independent farming career in that much debt, but the USDA offered him no other choice. "Such choices did, of course, exist -- including a direct loan to carry out farm operations, a direct loan to purchase or lease new farming equipment, or debt forgiveness for Provost Sr.," the suit shares. "They simply were not offered to Mr. Provost." The filing says that this incident was just one of many discriminatory and unlawful acts USDA officials have carried out -- and continue to carry out -- against the plaintiffs. "They insisted Mr. and Mrs. Provost should have supervised loan accounts where official signoff was required before a single dollar could be spent. They allowed USDA county committee members to abuse their authority and enrich themselves by targeting and taking over Mr. and Mrs. Provost's land. And when Mr. and Mrs. Provost did not have the funds to fertilize, weed, spray, water, plant, and harvest at the right time because of the USDA's untimely and inadequate loans, USDA officials said Mr. and Mrs. Provost were just ‘bad farmers.' Mr. Provost is, in fact, an award-winning farmer whose family has farmed sugarcane in Louisiana for generations." The Guardian details how the plaintiffs dealt with "unrelenting acts of apparent sabotage" throughout 2014, which the case contends were deliberate attempts to drive the couple out of business. For instance, the complaint says, dead cats were left inside Mr. Provost's tractor, cinderblocks were hidden in Mrs. Provost's fields to damage her equipment, and motor oil was repeatedly drained from vehicles. That same year, USDA staffers photocopied Mr. Provost's signature onto documents without permission to make it appear as if he had approved lower loan amounts, the suit alleges. After facing years of lending discrimination and other unlawful treatment, the Provosts lodged several formal complaints between 2016 and 2018 in which they urged the USDA to investigate and rectify local officials' discriminatory behavior, all to no avail, the case shares. "Those complaints were met with a pattern of delay and neglect by the defendants, who -- despite documented proof in support -- left the Provosts' complaints lingering for years, with no sign of any resolution," the suit alleges. Indeed, the lawsuit says the USDA office in charge of dealing with such complaints, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, is no more than a "dismissal factory" that conducts only "sham" investigations. The lawsuit looks to represent the following classes: "All Black farmers whose farm loan applications were delayed and/or denied on account of race within the last five years." "All Black farmers whose civil rights complaints regarding discriminatory acts by or with the acquiescence of the USDA have not been timely and adequately investigated in accordance with law within the last six years." "All Black farmers who applied for a federal farm program with the USDA and had their applications denied or reduced within the last five years based on delinquent USDA debts that the USDA has acknowledged should be forgiven on account of past discrimination." "All Black farmers who lost land leases to USDA officials -- including county committee members -- who had access to information provided by socially disadvantaged farmers when applying for federal farm programs with the USDA." [GN] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ninth Circuit Revives Putative Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Roberts Disability Law reports that in Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., No. 22-55761, __ F.4th __ , 2024 WL 1561668 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2024), Plaintiff-Appellant Ryan S. brought a putative class action against Defendant-Appellee UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries alleging that the Defendants violated the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 ("Parity Act"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1185a, and their ERISA fiduciary duties by applying a more stringent review process for outpatient, out-of-network mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) treatment than to comparable medical/surgical treatment. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit held that, as a matter of first impression, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendants applied an internal process that violates the Parity Act. As such, Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. However, Plaintiff did not state a claim for violation of ERISA plan terms. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of two of Plaintiff's claims and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Plaintiff filed this putative class action after his ERISA group health plan denied most of the costs of his outpatient, out-of-network substance use disorder programs. In the operative Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "violated three of ERISA's requirements: (1) the Parity Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1185a; (2) the fiduciary duty of loyalty, described in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104; and (3) the requirement under Sec. 1104 to follow the contractual terms of a beneficiary's plan." Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants maintain a system that subjects MH/SUD treatment claims to a more stringent review process than other medical/surgical claims and that this violates their ERISA fiduciary duties. With respect to the Parity Act, the court noted that there is no clear law on how to state a claim for a Parity Act violation, which can occur in a few forms. "Plaintiffs can allege that an ERISA plan contains an exclusion that is discriminatory on its face, that the plan contains a facially neutral term that is discriminatorily applied to MH/SUD treatment, or that the plan administrator applies an improper internal process that results in the exclusion of some MH/SUD treatment." Here, Plaintiff alleged an internal process violation. He did not need to allege a "categorical" practice or the uniform denial of his benefits. This is because handling MH/SUD treatment claims more stringently violates the Parity Act regardless of whether it leads to the uniform denial of all claims. A plaintiff need not specify the different process that allegedly applies to the analogous category of medical/surgical benefits in order to meet the plausibility pleading standard. Plaintiff needs only to plausibly allege the existence of a procedure used in assessing MH/SUD claims that is more restrictive than those used in assessing other claims. Here, Plaintiff cites to a 2018 report by the California Department of Managed Healthcare that concluded that UHC processed MH/SUD clams differently by applying a process called "Algorithms for Effective Reporting and Treatment (ALERT)" that could trigger a more intensive review process for MH/SUD claims. The court explained that "[a] pleading standard under which such a comprehensive investigation is insufficient would make it inordinately difficult for a plaintiff to challenge an internal process, given the likelihood that an individual claimant's own administrative record would not shed light on the internal processes to which the claims were subjected. The plausibility pleading standard is not that unreachable." Because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a Parity Act violation, the court found that this was enough to support his ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim since the language in the statute suggests that violation of the Parity Act is a breach of fiduciary duty. However, the court found that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege a violation of a specific plan term. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Ozorio Wage & Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SALVADOR OZORIO, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08892 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants from approximately March 2020 up to the present as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, cleaning, sanitizing, and stocking empty supplies. For at least 4 years prior to the filing of this action, the Defendant has committed several violations of the California Labor Code, including, among others, failing to pay Plaintiff and Class members overtime wages and minimum wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and failing to timely pay wages, says the Plaintiff. University of Southern California is a private institution located in Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Employees Seeks Class Action Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Shiner, writing for abc17news.com, reports that an employee at an assisted living facility in California, Missouri, has sued their employer, claiming the facility did not pay full wages. Nikki Green has filed a petition against Vantage Supported Living, LLC and is seeking a class-action certification for the lawsuit. The petition -- filed in the Western District court of Missouri -- claims multiple Fair Labor Standards Act violations, including that overtime and straight time wages were not paid and that the employer received unjust enrichment from not paying. [GN] VIEW INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Misstated Financial Results --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on April 9, 2024, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and related corporate entities. Mehedi v. View, Inc., 2024 WL 1560009 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2024). Lead plaintiff alleged that the company materially misstated its financial results. The Court held that lead plaintiff could not establish loss causation and therefore lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of the putative class, requiring the case to be dismissed in its entirety. The company became publicly traded after completing a merger with a special purpose acquisition company. Id. at *1. Five months after going public, the company announced in August 2021 that its audit committee had begun investigating the company's disclosures respecting warranty accruals related to a product the company offered. Id. In November 2021, the company announced that the investigation revealed that the company had materially misstated its liabilities in connection with its warranty-related obligations, and that the company would therefore need to restate its financial information. Id. Lead plaintiff, however, did not own any company stock in November 2021, having sold its stock after the company's August 2021 announcement. Id. at *6. The Court first held that lead plaintiff could not plead loss causation as required by Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, because lead plaintiff had sold its shares before the truth of the company's situation had been announced to the market. Id. The Court observed that, while the company had announced in August 2021 the subject of the audit committee's investigation, the truth respecting the company's financial statements became known only when the investigation was completed in November 2021; therefore, the Court held lead plaintiff could not attribute its alleged losses to the company's August 2021 announcement. Id. at *7. The Court rejected the suggestion that the August 2021 announcement amounted to a partial corrective disclosure; rather, the Court noted that the announcement merely announced an investigation, and an investigation "simply puts investors on notice of a potential future disclosure of fraudulent conduct." Id. (quoting Loos v. Immersion Corp., 762 F.3d 880, 890 (9th Cir. 2014)). As the Court explained, "because [lead plaintiff] sold its shares before the truth was revealed, [lead plaintiff] was not injured by the alleged misrepresentations." Id. at *8. In the absence of an injury, the Court held lead plaintiff lacked constitutional standing to pursue a claim against the company. Id. The Court similarly concluded that lead plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a claim under Section 14 of the Exchange Act, which concerns alleged misstatements in a proxy statement. Id. Lead plaintiff held shares as of the record date (January 2021) for the merger proxy that allegedly contained misstated financial information respecting the company's warranty accruals, but sold those shares in March 2021, before the truth of the company's alleged financial misstatements reported in that proxy statement was revealed in November 2021. Thus, the Court held lead plaintiff could not show that the revelation of this information caused it to suffer an economic loss. Id. at *9. While lead plaintiff also purchased shares after the record date, the Court held that those shares could not be the basis upon which to state a claim concerning alleged misstatements in the company's proxy statement. Id. The Court further held that the addition of a proposed new plaintiff in an amended complaint could not cure the fact that the original lead plaintiff never had standing. Id. While the Court observed that the appointment of a new or additional lead plaintiff would not violate the requirements for lead plaintiff approval set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Court explained that it could not allow this substitution based on binding Ninth Circuit precedent, requiring the dismissal of case where the original plaintiff never had standing to pursue the case from the outset. Id. at *9–10. The Court further explained that, while the Court had permitted the filing of an amended complaint, it had not specifically granted leave to add a new plaintiff, and that, in any event, adding a new plaintiff could not cure lead plaintiff's lack of standing. Id. at *10. The Court thus dismissed the entire action with prejudice. Id. at *11. [GN] VIEW INC: Court Tosses Mehedi Suit ---------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASIF MEHEDI, et al., v. VIEW, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-06374-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that: 1. Defendants View, Inc., and Rao Mulpuril's motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend. 2. Defendants Howard Lutnick, Paul Pion, Alice Chan, Anshu Jain, Robert J. Hochberg, Charlotte S. Blechman, CF Finance Holdings II, LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., and CF Group Management, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 183) is granted without leave to amend. 3. Defendant Vidul Prakash's motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend. The case is a putative class action for securities fraud against View, Inc. and various individuals connected to View's SEC filings. Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Defendants have filed replies. The Court held a hearing on the motions on March 14, 2024. On March 8, 2021, View became a publicly traded company through a merger with CF II, a special purpose acquisition company. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misrepresentations to investors concerning a materially misstated and understated warranty accrual related to Legacy View's "smart panels." On Aug. 18, 2021, the initial complaint was filed in this case. The initial complaint brought claims on behalf of a putative class of investors who bought View securities between Nov. 30, 2020 and Aug. 16, 2021 and allegedly suffered losses based on View's making materially false or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, including warranty costs and internal controls. On August 21, 2023, Stadium Capital filed the second amended complaint. The second amended complaint changes the end of the class period to Nov. 9, 2021, and brings claims against: View, Inc., f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II; current and former officers and directors of View and CF II; and and entities related to CF II. View is a technology company that manufactures smart building products, including a "smart" glass panel that adjusts in response to the sun. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8XS40A at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREEN CO: Seeks to Seal Certain Portions of Materials -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA BARGETTO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-02639-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to seal certain portions of the following materials filed by Walgreens in connection with Walgreen Co.'s Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification: Document No. Document Portions to Seal Basis for Sealing Exhibit 1 Excerpted Highlighted Contains personal pages from portion information of the the transcript at 21:22. Plaintiff. of the deposition of Plaintiff Elisa Bargetto Exhibit 3 Declaration of Highlighted Contains quotations Gil Ramirez portions in from and Par. 7, 10 and substantive Exhibit A. references to materials designated by Walgreens as Confidential. Exhibit 4 Declaration Highlighted Contains personal of Marcus portions information of Osacky in par.5 Plaintiff. Walgreen provides online medical products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FKtzHR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Cory E. Manning, Esq. Jarrett Coco, Esq. Miles E. Coleman, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 1320 Main St., 17th Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 255-5524 Facsimile: (803) 256-7500 E-mail: cory.manning@nelsonmullins.com jarrett.coco@nelsonmullins.com miles.coleman@nelsonmullins.com WALMART INC: Acne Treatment Drugs Contain Benzene, Sanderlin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY SANDERLIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01656-RBH (D.S.C., April 2, 2024) seeks redress for the economic harms caused by Defendant's sale of acne treatment drug products containing benzoyl peroxide (BPO) without warning Plaintiff and other consumers that (1) the BPO in the products is at high risk of degrading, and in fact degrades, into benzene under normal use, handling, and storage conditions, and (2) said products contain benzene, which is a well-known human carcinogen. According to the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known that the BPO in the acne products it sold to the Plaintiff and Proposed Class under the Equate brand would degrade into benzene. The Defendant misled Plaintiff and Proposed Class by representing the BPO Products only had the ingredients listed and -- by omission -- did not contain benzene. As a result of Defendant's misconduct and consumer deception, the Plaintiff and Proposed Class have been economically harmed, as they purchased a product -- one containing a deadly human carcinogen -- that they otherwise would never have purchased, says the suit. Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Ryan Langley, Esq. LANGLEY LAW FIRM 229 Magnolia Street Spartanburg, SC 29306 Telephone: (864) 774-4662 Facsimile: (864) 580-7041 E-mail: ryan@thelangleylawfirm.com - and - Christopher B. Hood, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 1st Avenue N Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 314-5919 E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set June 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION C.A. No. 2022-0090-NAC SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All persons who held fewer than 1,000 shares of Westell Technologies, Inc. ("Westell" or the "Company") common stock (ticker: "WSTL") immediately prior to and received cash in exchange for their shares of Westell common stock in the amount of $1.48 per share as a result of a 1,000-to-1 reverse stock split of Westell's common stock, which was followed immediately by a 1-to-1,000 forward stock split of Westell's common stock (the "Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) lead plaintiff Pankaj Sharma ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Class, and (ii) defendants Westell Technologies, Inc., The Voting Trust Agreement Dated February 23, 1994, among Mr. Penny, Mr. Simon and Certain Members of the Penny Family and the Simon Family, Robert W. Foskett, Kirk Brannock, Scott Chandler, Timothy Duitsman, Cary Wood, Mark Zorko, and Patrick J. McDonough, Jr. (collectively, "Defendants" and together with Plaintiff, the "Settling Parties") have reached a proposed settlement for $2,200,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release between Plaintiff and Defendants, dated February 13, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action against Defendants. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 14, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Vice Chancellor Nathan A. Cook, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by Zoom (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved, including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award; (v) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award; and (vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting Plaintiff's Counsel using the contact information below. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Class Members in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, Class Members consist of all persons who held fewer than 1,000 shares of Westell common stock immediately prior to and received cash in exchange for their shares of Westell common stock in the amount of $1.48 per share as a result of the Transaction. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of shares of Westell common stock held by the Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of shares of Westell common stock held by the Class Members immediately prior to the Transaction. As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Class Members received the Transaction Consideration. Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award, in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 30, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel. Requests for the Notice, and all other inquiries, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Herbert W. Mondros Rigrodsky Law, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 295-5310 hwm@rl-legal.com Shane Rowley Rowley Law PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 (914) 400-1920 srowley@rowleylawplc.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE [GN] WILLIAMS & CO: Court Certifies Property Schemes Advice Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal court judge has granted 134 property investors leave to contest a single 'class action' claim against a solicitor which is alleged to have provided negligent professional advice on an investment scheme. Williams & Co Solicitors gave advice about nine different property schemes relating to projects promoted by Northern Powerhouse Developments (NPD) between 2017 and 2019, operating through various associated companies. High-profile property developers Gavin Woodhouse and Robin Forster were behind the firm, which last year claimed to have a revenue of some GBP4.5 million on one funding website. Investors had put in retirement cash or life savings, in some cases up to GBP100,000, losing a total of GBP14 million. David Niven, partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper which is representing the claimants, explains that NPD was a holding company set up to acquire hotels and care homes which were to be refurbished and sold as individual rooms to investors by way of a long lease. Buyers would enter into a sub-lease to a management firm who would pay a guaranteed rent with guaranteed buy-back provisions. Investors paid all the money upfront before getting the lease; but at the time of exchange, the firm didn't own the hotel in question, says Niven. They never completed. Forster has been subject to an FCA investigation when he was previously found to have taken GBP57 million from 380 investors in an illegal care home investment scheme through Qualia Care Properties Ltd and Qualia Care Developments Ltd. "The projects amounted to an illegal collective investment scheme, and we would say the same model was being operated in the hotels as well," Niven tells LandlordZONE. Bust "The developer has gone bust so there's nothing in the estate to pay my claimants any of their losses back, so we've had to try and look for another target: the lawyer whose job it was to protect the buyers," he adds. "It's a scandal as there was no protection -- they didn't warn them what the risks were likely to be." Although it could take 18 months before the case goes to trial, Niven is confident of their success. [GN] WOLTER INC: Mayberry Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages ------------------------------------------------- CODY MAYBERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WOLTER, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00424-PP (E.D. Wis., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 2022 to on or about March 29, 2024 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt dispatcher and service admin. He asserts that Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's actions were intentional, willful, and in violation of the FLSA and the WWPCL. Headquartered in Brookfield, WI, Wolter Inc. offers material handling, industrial storage, workplace storage, automation, generators, engineered systems, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com WOODSTREAM CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Maroney Due June 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maroney et al., v. Woodstream Corporation, Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order adjusting the class certification motion deadline as follows: -- Deadline to file Class Certification Motion: June 25, 2024 -- Deadline to Disclose Class Certification June 25, 2024 Experts: -- Deadline to Make Class Certification Aug. 6, 2024 Experts Available for Deposition: -- Deadline to File Opposition to Class Aug. 23, 2024 Certification: -- Deadline to Disclose Class Certification Aug. 23, 2024 Opposition Experts: -- Deadline to Make Class Certification Sept. 24, 2024 Opposition Experts Available for Deposition: -- Deadline to Reply in Support of Class Oct. 3, 2024 Certification: Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife caring and control products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ik9pQj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Robyn E. Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND &. ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com XCEL ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Smokehouse Creek Fire ------------------------------------------------------------------ Potts Law Firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of Donnie Parker, the owner of Spring Creek Ranch in Skellytown, Texas, on April 11, 2024, in Amarillo Division of the United States District Court for the Northern Division of Texas. The lawsuit arises out of the Smokehouse Creek Fire which started on February 26, 2024 and destroyed over 1,000,0000 acres of rangelands where 85% of the state's cattle are located. The lawsuit is against the corporate defendants Xcel Energy Services, Inc., Southwestern Public Service Company and Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. The lawsuit claims that the three defendants negligently failed to maintain and repair a defective utility pole which started the fire that burned for nearly three weeks and has been called the worst wildfire in the state's history. The lawsuit seeks to recover property losses for all owners of ranches negatively impacted by the fire including their loss of grasslands, damage and death to wildlife, loss of fencing, loss of cattle, and loss of physical structures. Derek Potts, lead attorney for Mr. Parker and Spring Creek Ranch said in a statement: "All of the ranchers in the panhandle whose land was burned are likely looking at years for their properties and cattle businesses to recover from this horrific event that could have been easily prevented. We have brought this lawsuit on their behalves and are seeking speedy and fair compensation for them all from the Court." The lawsuit is, Donnie Parker d/b/a Spring Creek Ranch, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v Excel Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:24-cv-00078-Z. [GN] XTO ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Clare Hochhalter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion and amending the pretrial deadlines as follows: (1) All fact discovery will be completed by the following deadline, with all discovery pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36 to be served a minimum of 33 days prior to the deadline: Sept. 26, 2024. (2) The deadlines for exchanging complete expert witness reports are as follows: Oct. 10, 2024, for Plaintiff(s); Nov. 25, 2024, for Defendant; and Dec. 10, 2024, for any rebuttal experts. (3) The parties shall have until Dec. 20, 2024, to complete discovery depositions of expert witnesses. (4) The deadlines for briefing on class certification are as follows: Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Jan. 13, 2025 Defendants' response: Feb. 13, 2025; and Plaintiff's reply: March 3, 2025. (5) The deadline for all dispositive motions will be 30 days after opt out deadline if class certification is granted. The final pretrial conference on January 14, 2025, is rescheduled for Oct. 14, 2025, at 9:00 AM by telephone. To participate, the parties should call (877) 810-9415 and enter access code 8992581. The jury trial set January 27, 2025, shall be reset for Oct. 27, 2025, at 9:00 AM in Bismarck (Eagle Courtroom) before Judge Hovland. A ten (10) day trial is anticipated. On March 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Amend the March 22, 2023 Scheduling Order." It avers that there is good cause to extend the pretrial deadlines due to delays in obtaining discovery from Defendant and has submitted proposed dates. On April 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a response to the Plaintiff's motion. It requests that the court extend the pretrial deadlines approximately eight weeks beyond the dates proposed by the Plaintiff in its motion. On April 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a reply in which it advises that it does not take issue with the deadlines proposed by the Defendant. XTO is involved with the production, processing, transportation, and development of oil and natural gas resources. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vorOJC at no extra charge.[CC] ZALKIN LAW: Deats Loses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANA DEATS, v. THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-02005-L-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Lorenz entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiff does not articulate how damages would be calculated if the Class prevailed at trial. On the other hand, in its Removal, the Defendant calculated that the maximum reasonable value of the case at trial would exceed $5 million. The Plaintiff has not contested it on the issue of federal jurisdiction. Instead, she proposed a $285,000 Settlement without explanation of the vast discrepancy in the value of the case. Next, the Court cannot approve the Settlement's cy pres provision. The parties propose to distribute any uncashed settlement checks to Child USA as a cy pres recipient. The parties provide no explanation why this organization would be an appropriate for this class action. As defined in the Settlement, the Class potentially encompasses a larger group, namely "All individuals whose protected health information or personally identifiable information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the data breach discovered by the Defendant on or April 6, 2023[, except for the o]fficers, directors, employees, and agents of Defendant who received a Notice of Data Breach letter." On April 4, 2023, a known cybercriminal group infiltrated Defendant's computer network and accessed client information including driver's license and social security numbers, medical information, and highly sensitive details from client case files concerning sexual abuse and harassment. After the breach, the Plaintiff received an email from the cybercriminal group stating the group was in possession of her case file. The email included images of what appeared to be attorney notes about her case detailing highly personal information. Although the Defendant learned of the data breach on April 6, 2023, it did not start notifying its clients until Sept. 6, 2023. The Defendant sent a Notice of Data Breach to 523 clients. Zalkin handles major personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, product liability, maritime and aviation accident cases. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ljeos6 at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Quebec Court Approves Class Action Against 16 Opioid Makers --------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Underwriter reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit against 16 pharmaceutical companies that are alleged to have misled consumers about the efficacy and dangers of opioid medications. The class action includes everyone in Quebec who was diagnosed with opioid use disorder after being prescribed opioid medications made by the pharmaceutical companies between 1996 and the present. Margo Siminovitch, one of the lawyers representing people who developed opioid use disorder, says the lawsuit's representative plaintiff was never warned about the risks of the drugs. Jean-Francois Bourassa, a roofer, was prescribed opioids after a fall on the job in 2005 and used them for more than a decade, developing an addiction. The pharmaceutical companies argued against allowing the class action to proceed, saying it treated all opioids as if they were the same and included companies whose drugs the representative plaintiff never consumed. The suit seeks $30,000 in damages for each member of the class, plus additional damages to be determined on an individual basis, as well as $25 million in punitive damages. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Ordered to Pay $4MM in Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Amy Beth Hanson and Matthew Brown, writing for Associated Press, reports that a federal jury said BNSF Railway contributed to the deaths of two people who were exposed to asbestos decades ago when tainted mining material was shipped through a Montana town where thousands have been sickened. The jury awarded $4 million each in compensatory damages to the estates of the two plaintiffs, who died in 2020. Jurors said asbestos-contaminated vermiculite that spilled in the rail yard in the town of Libby, Montana was a substantial factor in the plaintiffs' illnesses and deaths. Family members of the two victims hugged their attorneys after the verdict was announced. An attorney for the plaintiffs said the ruling brought some accountability, but one family member told The Associated Press that no amount of money would replace her lost sister. "I'd rather have her than all the money in the world," Judith Hemphill said of her sister, Joyce Walder. The vermiculite from Libby has high concentrations of naturally-occurring asbestos and was used in insulation and for other commercial purposes in homes and businesses across the U.S. After being mined from a mountaintop outside town, it was loaded onto rail cars that sometimes spilled the material in the Libby rail yard. Residents have described piles of vermiculite being stored in the yard and dust from the facility blowing through downtown Libby. The jury did not find that BNSF acted intentionally or with indifference so no punitive damages were awarded. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. acquired BNSF in 2010, two decades after the W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine near Libby shut down and stopped shipping the contaminated mineral. The estates of the two victims argued that the railroad knew the asbestos-tainted vermiculite was dangerous and failed to clean it up. Both lived near the rail yard decades ago and died from mesothelioma, a rare lung cancer linked to asbestos exposure. The pollution in Libby has been cleaned up, largely at public expense. W.R. Grace, which played a central role in the town's tragedy, filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and paid $1.8 billion into an asbestos trust fund to settle future cases. Yet the long timeframe over which asbestos-related diseases develop means people previously exposed are likely to continue getting sick for years to come, health officials say. The case in federal civil court over the two deaths was the first of numerous lawsuits against the Texas-based railroad corporation to reach trial over its past operations in Libby. Current and former residents of the small town near the U.S.-Canada border want BNSF held accountable, accusing it of playing a role in asbestos exposure that health officials say has killed several hundred people and sickened thousands. "This is good news. This is the first community exposure case that will hold the railroad accountable for what they've done," said Mark Lanier, an attorney for Walder and Hemphill's estates. The railroad was considering whether to appeal, said a BNSF spokesperson, who referred to it as a "very sad case." "They (the jury) had the difficult task of evaluating conduct that occurred more than 50 years ago, before BNSF ever existed," said Kendall Sloan, the railroad's director of external communications. BNSF attorney Chad Knight told jurors last week the railroad's employees didn't know the vermiculite was filled with hazardous microscopic asbestos fibers. "In the '50s, '60s and '70s no one in the public suspected there might be health concerns," Knight said Friday. The railroad's experts also suggested during the trial that the plaintiffs could have been exposed to asbestos elsewhere. The railroad said it was obliged under law to ship the vermiculite, which was used in insulation and for other commercial purposes, and that W.R. Grace employees had concealed the health hazards from the railroad. U.S. District Judge Brian Morris had instructed the jury it could only find the railroad negligent based on its actions in the Libby Railyard, not for hauling the vermiculite. Former Libby resident Bill Johnston, who followed the trial, said he was glad the victims' estates got a substantial award. Johnston, 67, recalled playing in piles of vermiculite at the rail yard as a child and helping his father add piles of the material to their home garden, where it was used as a soil amendment. He, his two siblings and their parents have all been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, Johnston said Monday. "They didn't do anything intentionally to cause this harm to their body. Other people knew about it and didn't care," he said of Libby asbestos victims. "What's that worth? It's hard to put a value on that. But when you say you're going to die prematurely or the life you have left is going to be tethered to an oxygen bottle, there should be some value that makes their life easier in the end." BNSF was formed in 1995 from the merger of Burlington Northern railroad, which operated in Libby for decades, and the Santa Fe Pacific Corporation. Looming over the proceedings was W.R. Grace, which operated the mountaintop vermiculite mine 7 miles (11 kilometers) outside of Libby until it closed in 1990. Morris referred to the chemical company as "the elephant in the room" during the BNSF trial and reminded jurors repeatedly that the case was about the railroad’s conduct, not W.R. Grace's separate liability. Federal prosecutors in 2005 indicted W. R. Grace and executives from the company on criminal charges over the contamination in Libby. A jury acquitted them following a 2009 trial. The Environmental Protection Agency descended on Libby after 1999 news reports of illnesses and deaths among mine workers and their families. In 2009 the agency declared in Libby the nation's first ever public health emergency under the federal Superfund cleanup program. A second trial against the railroad over the death of a Libby resident is scheduled for May in federal court in Missoula. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J and Kenvue To Pay $45MM in Talc Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Cailey Gleeson, writing for Forbes.com, reports that an Illinois Court ordered pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue to pay $45 million to a family that alleged the companies' talcum-based baby powder led to the death of a relative diagnosed with a fatal cancer linked to asbestos exposure, the company's latest legal issue involving talc products. Theresa Garcia died in July 2020 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer frequently connected to asbestos exposure, and her family filed a lawsuit alleging that Garcia's frequent use of the companies' talcum-based baby powder led to her diagnosis, according to a news release from legal firm Dean Omar Branham Shirley, which represented the family. The firm's news release said that throughout the case attorneys showed evidence that the products "contained asbestos fibers" and experts "explained that the daily use and amount inhaled by Ms. Garcia throughout her life led to her mesothelioma." The jury found that Kenvue, the former consumer healthcare division of the pharmaceutical giant that became an independent company in August 2023, was responsible for 70% of the issues that led to Garcia's death while Johnson & Johnson and another unit were responsible for the remaining 30%, according to the release. J&J's Worldwide Vice President of Litigation Erik Haas said in a statement the company plans to appeal the ruling immediately and expects to be successful, going on to say: "The verdict in this trial is irreconcilable with the decades of independent scientific evaluations confirming talc is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer." Johnson & Johnson won a similar lawsuit in a Florida Court, according to multiple outlets, after a jury decided the company's baby powder did not lead to the ovarian cancer diagnosis of Patricia Matthey, who used the powder daily and died in 2019 after being diagnosed with the cancer in 2016. "Johnson & Johnson has maintained that its talc-based baby powder does not contain asbestos nor does it cause cancer, and announced in August 2022 it would swap out the substance with cornstarch in products globally beginning in 2023. It previously announced the discontinuation of its talc-based products in North America in 2020, citing declining sales. The Justice Department opened a probe into the products in July 2019, investigating what the company knew about the risk of cancer. Amid thousands of lawsuits over allegations of talc-induced health problems, Johnson & Johnson filed for bankruptcy twice, in October 2021 and April 2023. As part of one of the filings, the company proposed an $8.9 billion settlement last April to resolve the claims brought by thousands of plaintiffs, but the plan was ultimately rejected by a judge in July. ********* 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 ***