/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240509.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 94 Headlines 175-33 HORACE: Ramirez Files Civil Rights Violations in E.D.N.Y. 2428392 INC: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ADDSHOPPERS INC: Ingrao Files Personal Property Claims in E.D. Pa. AEDES DE VENUSTAS: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over False Statements AKIMA GLOBAL: Yeend Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Cert Bid Extended to May 20 ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Christian Files Personal Injury Suit in Ohio AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Employee Data Sharing AMERICAN ECONOMY: Withholds Insurers' Future Labor, Stanley Claims AMERICAN LIFE: Hosseini Files Contract Suit in C.D. California AMERICAN PUBLISHING: Files Class Action Over Key Bridge Collapse ANGELICA CORPORATION: Smith Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses APPLE INC: Bodenburg Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Opposition Briefing AUTODESK INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations BANK OF AMERICA: Oral Argument on Renewed Bid for Remand Tossed BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Illinois GIPA Violation BARILLA AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Sinatro Continued to May 23 BARILLA AMERICA: Diaz Sues Over Pasta Sauces "No Preservative" Ads BBBB BONDING: Benton Suit Moved to the E.D. California BINANCE HOLDINGS: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action BONNIE PLANTS: Collects Data Without Consent, Engelkens Alleges CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing CATALENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novo Holdings CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Matlick Files Suit in D. New Jersey COINBASE GLOBAL: Aceves Sues Over Sale of Crypto Currency COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Securities Claims Class Action CONCORD SERVICING: Faces Hartshorn FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey EMERGE CANADA: Proposed ETF Class Action Lawsuit Discontinued EMPIRE AUTO: Misner Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages EVENT WORKFORCE: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website EVOLV TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Product Effectiveness EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Humphrey Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California FUSION SPONSOR LLC: Martel Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. GENERAL MOTORS: Block Sues Over Tracking of Driving Behavior Data GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Sharing GENERAL MOTORS: King Sues Over Erroneous Reports GLOBAL CORD: Faces Class Action Over Conflicted Transactions GLOBAL K9: Faces Colindres Wage-and-Hour Suit in California GREAT LAKES: Faces Anderson Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois HEY FAVOR: Ct. Sets Hearing on Bid to Stay Consideration HIWASSEE ACRES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says HPG PIZZA: Seeks to Strike Opperman's Declaration in Mighell INTRINSIC TRADING: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota JOYOUS PBC: Faces Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations KLUGEX INC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota LAKE CONSUMER: Pineda Files Real Property Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania LEMONADE INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Hilbert Suit Says LENS.COM INC: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida LENS.COM INC: Nail Suit Removed to C.D. California LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations LUCKY BRANDS: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania MATCH GROUP: Mendoza Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois MATCH GROUP: Whitman Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois MAY DYNASTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han Suit Alleges MDL 3100: Panel Denies Transfer of 9 Suits Due to Settlement MDL 3101: 10 Suits Consolidated in Baby Food Contamination Row MDL 3102: Four Suits Consolidated in Tithe Mismanagement Row MDL 3103: Six Suits Transferred to N.D. W. Va. MEDTORQUE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hess Alleges MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.5MM OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Moore Sues Over WARN Act Violation PNC BANK: Spencer Sues Over Unlawful Junk Fees PREMIUM APPAREL: Dalton Sues Over ADA Violations in D. Minnesota PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Files Contract Suit in M.D.N.C. RAWLINGS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Settlement Proceeds RAYCEN RAINES: Blalock Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Zabransky Sues Over Breach of Contract SANDOZ CANADA: Opioids Class Suit Enters Phase Two of Certification SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA JV: Arciga Suit Moved to C.D. California SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA: United African-Asian Sues Over ADA Violation SPIRIT AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Wiretapping Class Action Suit THOMAS J. VILSACK: Provost Files Suit in D. Columbia TORRID LLC: Faces Class Action Over False Sale Prices Online TOWNEBANK: Pines Horse Files Suit in E.D. Virginia TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Goldstein FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y. TRUEACCORD CORP: Ryder Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices UBER EATS: Faces Class Suit in Las Vegas Over Imposter Restaurants VIRGINIA FARM: Haynes Files Personal Property Suit in E.D. Va. WALMART INC: Argenzio Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Product WELLS FARGO: Beloff Files Personal Property Suit in N.D. California WELLS FARGO: Oberly Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California WHOLE FOODS: Yount Sues Over Omitted Wage Scale in Job Postings ********* 175-33 HORACE: Ramirez Files Civil Rights Violations in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 175-33 Horace Harding Realty Corp. The case is captioned as EDWIN RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 175-33 HORACE HARDING REALTY CORP., Case No. 2:24-cv-01767-PKC-SIL (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 175-33 Horace Harding Realty Corp. is a real estate agency in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783-9662 Facsimile: (646) 435-4376 Email: james@civilrightsny.com 2428392 INC: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 2428392, INC., Case No. 23-09310-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 12, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01073-MMB to the proceeding. The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2428392, Inc. is an American chain of entertainment retail stores headquartered in Albany, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rex T. Reeves, Esq. THE KARLIN LAW FIRM LLP 13522 Newport Ave., Suite 201 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 731-3283 Email: staff@karlinlaw.com - and - Michael A. Oropallo, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON, LLP Barclay Damon Tower 125 East Jefferson Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 425-2831 Facsimile: (315) 703-7367 Email: moropallo@barclaydamon.com ADDSHOPPERS INC: Ingrao Files Personal Property Claims in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AddShoppers, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as AMELIA INGRAO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01022-JHS (E.D. Pa., March 8, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendants' personal property violations. AddShoppers, Inc. is a barber shop in Huntersville, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com AEDES DE VENUSTAS: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aedes De Venustas, Inc. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aedes De Venustas, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02399-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aedes de Venustas -- https://www.aedes.com/ -- is a niche perfume store (also called Aedes Perfumery) and fragrance line.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over False Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of Akero Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRO) common stock between September 13, 2022 and October 9, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned Klobus v. Akero Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-02534 (N.D. Cal.), the Akero class action lawsuit charges Akero and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Akero class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-akero-therapeutics-inc-class-action-lawsuit-akro.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Akero class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 25, 2024. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Akero is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on advancing its lead product candidate efruxifermin ("EFX") to provide a new treatment for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"), a serious liver disease. During the Class Period, Akero claimed to be evaluating EFX in two Phase 2 clinical trials in patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH: (i) Akero's "HARMONY" trial that tested EFX in pre-cirrhotic NASH patients; and (ii) Akero's "SYMMETRY" trial that purportedly tested EFX in patients with NASH-induced cirrhosis. The Akero class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) approximately 20% of the patients enrolled in the SYMMETRY study had cryptogenic cirrhosis and did not have definitive NASH at baseline; (ii) the cryptogenic cirrhotic patients included in the SYMMETRY study did not have biopsy-proven compensated cirrhosis due to definitive NASH; (iii) the results from the cryptogenic cirrhosis patients were to be excluded from the calculation of the NASH resolution secondary endpoints; (iv) Akero had introduced a confounding factor into the SYMMETRY study's design, materially influencing the study's potential results and increasing the risks that the study would fail to meet its primary endpoint; (v) the SYMMETRY study did not align with U.S. Food & Drug Administration guidance for testing a drug in treating NASH cirrhotics because Akero had not ruled out potential causes of each patient's cirrhosis other than NASH; and (vi) consequently, Akero had materially misrepresented the nature of the SYMMETRY trial, its usefulness in supporting any new drug application, the likelihood that the SYMMETRY trial would be successful as measured by its primary endpoint, and the likelihood that EFX would become a commercial treatment for NASH cirrhotics. It was not until Akero disclosed the study's 36-week results on October 10, 2023 that the market finally began to learn the truth, with investors suffering substantial losses and damages under the federal securities laws as the price of Akero stock plummeted nearly 70% in response, according to the Akero class action lawsuit. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Akero common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Akero class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Akero class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Akero class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Akero class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm was ranked #1 on the ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in a row Robbins Geller topped the list. And in those three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] AKIMA GLOBAL: Yeend Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALILA YEEND, BOUNNAM PHIMASONE, ELVIN MINAYA RODRIGUEZ, LISA LAPOINTE, and SHANTADEWIE RAHMEE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatives, v. AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01281-AMN-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g), certifying the following three plaintiff classes: (1) Forced Labor Class, made up of all detainees at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility ("BFDF") who participated in the Voluntary Worker Program from Feb. 1, 2015 through the date of final judgment in this action; (2) Labor Law Class, made up of all BFDF detainees who participated in the Voluntary Worker Program from Sept. 8, 2016 through the date of final judgment in this action; (3) Unjust Enrichment Class, made up of all BFDF detainees who participated in the Voluntary Worker Program who performed work in the housing units or the kitchen from Sept. 8, 2016 through the date of final judgment in this action; and further appointing as class counsel Alison Frick and Alyssa Isidoridy, of Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP, and Maureen Hussain, Cristina Brito, and Olivia Post Rich, of Worker Justice Center of New York; directing the Defendant to produce all information necessary to effectuate notice and class-wide resolution of the claims; setting a schedule for the Plaintiffs to submit for the Court's approval a proposed notice to be sent to all class members in accordance with Rule 23; and for any other relief the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant specializes in information technology system integration, detention management operations, as well as data and records management. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r5rgit at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allison Frick, Esq. Alyssa Isidoridy, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 18E, 48th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 660-2332 E-mail: africk@kllf-law.com aisidoridy@kllf-law.com - and - Maureen Hussain, Esq. Cristina Brito, Esq. Olivia Post Rich, Esq. WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK 9 Main Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 331-6615 E-mail: mhussain@wjcny.org cbrito@wjcny.org opostrich@wjcny.org ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Cert Bid Extended to May 20 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MEINERT and NICHOLAS SCHALLUS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, d/b/a PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC (W.D Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting their consent motion to extend date to file opposition to motion to certify class action until May 20, 2024. The Plaintiffs obtained an extension of seven days to file their motion to certify, which reduced by one week the Defendant's time to file a response. The Lead counsel for Defendant, John Myers, has a long-planned vacation from May 10 until May 18, 2024, which covers a significant part of the first extension week. The Defendant is the second-largest public transit agency in Pennsylvania and the 20th-largest in the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m8RNfo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John J. Myers, Esq. William S. Myers, Esq. ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 566-5900/412-566-1938 Facsimile: jmyers@eckertseamans.com wmyers@eckertseamans.com ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Christian Files Personal Injury Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Solutions Group, LLC. The case is captioned as JAMES CHRISTIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00456-PAB (N.D. Ohio, March 8, 2024). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Alliance Solutions Group, LLC is an employment agency in Independence, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Wiest, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER D. WIEST 50 East Rivercenter Blvd., Ste. 1280 Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Amazon Prime Video Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties request the Court to enter the following proposed order and set the deadlines for discovery and class-certification briefing: Event Proposed Date Close of Fact Discovery: April 25, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: July 11, 2025 Close of Rebuttal Expert Discovery: Aug. 25, 2025 Deadline for Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Amazon's Opposition to Nov. 24, 2025 Class Certification Motion: Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Dec. 15, 2025 in Support of Motion for Class Certification: Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=np6jyD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael Robert Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, II, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643‐0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303‐0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682‐5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com MWebster@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Employee Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------------ ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges Amazon.com Services has illegally collected, stored and shared Illinois employees' facial scans without consent. The 14-page privacy lawsuit was filed by an Amazon warehouse employee in Chicago who claims the company scanned her facial geometry using biometric-enabled software each time she clocked in or out of her shifts. The suit contends that Amazon has run afoul of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by capturing, storing and disseminating to third-party vendors the plaintiff's and other workers' biometric data without first providing written notice and obtaining consent. According to the case, the company has also violated the BIPA by failing to publish a written policy that provided details on how long the information would be retained and when it would be destroyed. The complaint further charges that Amazon has failed to permanently delete the plaintiff's biometric information as required under the BIPA, which stipulates that workers' data should be destroyed after the initial purpose for collecting such identifiers has been satisfied. The plaintiff claims she was never informed that Amazon was collecting and storing her facial geometry, nor did she at any time authorize the company to do so, the suit says. The filing argues that the defendant's allegedly improper conduct exposes its workers to grave privacy risks. "For example, if Amazon.com Services' database containing facial geometry scans or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, Amazon employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information," the case stresses. The lawsuit looks to represent Illinois residents who had their biometric data collected by Amazon.com Services at any point in the past five years. [GN] AMERICAN ECONOMY: Withholds Insurers' Future Labor, Stanley Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROY STANLEY and GAIL STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10622-DJC (D. Mass., March 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and declaratory judgment and relief. The case arises from a dispute between policyholders, including the Plaintiffs, and their property insurer, American Economy Insurance Company. The lawsuit concerns the withholding of future labor, yet to be incurred, by American Economy as depreciation when it calculates and pays its actual cash value (ACV) payment obligations for structural property losses, except for the labor that is expressly permitted to be withheld under the express terms of American Economy's insurance policies. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek to remedy the improper withholdings of future labor from their ACV payments. American Economy Insurance Company is an insurance company headquartered in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 Email: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com AMERICAN LIFE: Hosseini Files Contract Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Life, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as SEYED SAEED HOSSEINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN LIFE, INC. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01988-MWF-AS (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged contract violation. American Life, Inc. is a real estate developer in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fari Bari Nejadpour, Esq. 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 954-9595 Facsimile: (800) 760-1107 Email: nejadpour@lalawinc.com AMERICAN PUBLISHING: Files Class Action Over Key Bridge Collapse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madeleine O'Neill, writing for The Daily Record, reports that a Baltimore publishing company has filed a proposed class-action claim on behalf of businesses affected by the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse last month. If approved, the claim says, the class could end up including "tens of thousands of businesses" that were harmed when a massive container ship struck the Key Bridge on the early morning of March 26, sending the span tumbling into the Patapsco River below. The company behind the claim is American Publishing LLC, which produces the United States Cybersecurity Magazine and the Armed Forces Directory, an informational publication distributed at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Meade, according to court papers. The company is owned by Karen and Charles Austin, who say they saw a decline in sales after the bridge collapse. The couple was "positioned to continue their business operations undisturbed, yet the destruction of the Key Bridge directly undermined this stability, causing ongoing significant revenue losses," according to the class-action claim. "Claimants' income declined 84% when comparing April 2023 to April 2024. There was no other reason for this dramatic loss of income other than the destruction of the Key Bridge." A judge will have to decide whether to certify the proposed class. The new court papers claim that the owner and manager of the ship that caused the Key Bridge collapse should not be allowed to limit their liability in the crash. The two companies filed a limitation of liability action just days after the disaster, asking to cap the amount of damages they could be required to pay at about $43 million. Baltimore's Key Bridge destroyed: Everything you need to know "Essentially, the negligence of the (companies) not only led to the physical destruction of the Key Bridge but also precipitated a broader economic shutdown in Baltimore, severely affecting local business owners like Claimants," wrote one of the lawyers for the publisher, Roy L. Mason. Todd Lochner, an admiralty lawyer based in Annapolis, is also representing American Publishing. The ship that caused the Key Bridge collapse, the Dali, is owned by a Singaporean company called Grace Ocean Private Limited and managed by Synergy Marine Pte. Ltd. The companies asked to limit their liability under an 1851 law that was famously invoked after the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. If successful, the action would allow the companies to limit their liability to the value of the Dali and its cargo. The 95,000-ton vessel remains stuck in the Patapsco River. It reportedly suffered a power failure as it was leaving the Port of Baltimore and struck one of the Key Bridge's support piers, causing the bridge to collapse. The crash killed six members of a construction crew who were working on the bridge at the time. "Thousands of ships have made the same journey the Dali made that fateful day when the Key Bridge was struck without incident," said Mason, who is of counsel for the Washington, D.C., law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman. "There were major red flags that the Dali never should have left port that day, which makes the bridge collapse -- and the damage to Mr. and Mrs. Austin's business -- entirely preventable." The city of Baltimore has also filed a claim and asked a federal judge to reject the companies' request to limit their liability. [GN] ANGELICA CORPORATION: Smith Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ANGELICA CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation; ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01968-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 1, 2024, will move this Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1), certifying, a plaintiff class and sub-classes as follows: Recordkeeping Meal Period Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees of the Defendants who worked a shift in excess of five hours for the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment, and whose timekeeping records reflect a late, shortened, or missed meal period." Auto-Deduct Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendants who worked a shift in excess of five hours for the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment, and who had a half-hour of time deducted from their pay on each shift." Second Meal Period Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendants who worked a shift in excess of ten hours for the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment." Overtime Class: "All persons employed by Defendants in hourly or non-exempt positions in California who worked a shift greater than eight (8) hours, or who worked more than 40 hours during a given workweek during the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment." Off-the-Clock Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees of the Defendants who worked a shift during the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment." The Plaintiff will also move the court for an order appointing the Plaintiff as class representative of the classes and sub-classes proposed and/or later proposed and approved by the Court; and approving Shaun Setareh and William M. Pao of the Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g). The low number of timeclocks, combined with Angelica’s practice of releasing employees for their meal breaks at the same time resulted in lines to clock in and clock out which the Plaintiff and putative class members were not compensated for. On Sept. 6, 2017, the Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendants as a production worker at the Fresno location. Angelica is the provider of textile rental and linen management services to the U.S. healthcare market. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aQJdLR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Brian Louis, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com brian@setarehlaw.com APPLE INC: Bodenburg Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BODENBURG, On Behalf Of Herself And All Others Similarly Situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04409-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will, on July 16, 2024, ask the court to enter and order certifying this action as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2) and appointing her and her counsel as class representative and Class Counsel, respectively. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2) Class defined as: "All subscribers within the United States who during the Class Periods paid for an Apple iCloud subscription (also called "iCloud+" since June 2021). The Class Period applicable to Count I (breach of contract) and Count IV (violations of UCL) of the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint is the period from Sept. 1, 2019 until the date of the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Class Period applicable to Count II (CLRA violations) and Count III (FAL violation) of the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is the period from Sept. 1, 2020 until the date of the filing of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification." Specifically excluded from the class definition are Apple, its employees, and directors, as well as all judicial officers assigned to this case, along with their staff and family members. If the Court were to find this class definition overly broad or otherwise unsuitable for class certification, the Plaintiff requests in the alternative certification of any narrower class or subclass definition suitable for class certification. Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KRnyyi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 201 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 363-3333 Facsimile: (866) 832-5852 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com - and - Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. Ian D. Krupar, Esq. THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC 2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 200 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 232-0331 Facsimile: (619) 232-4019 E-mail: ralph@rbk-law.com ian@rbk-law.com ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Opposition Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Defendant asks the Court to enter an order deferring briefing in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification so that the Court can decide Arise's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings first, and to the extent the Plaintiff's Motion is reached by the Court, granting Arise an extension of time up to 21 days after this Court rules on Arise's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings. On Apr. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, alleging Arise failed to pay her minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and required her to pay for her training, equipment, and other expenses or deductions from her pay. The same day, the Plaintiff also filed her motion for conditional certification, seeking to bring these claims on behalf of a putative FLSA collective. On April 26, 2024, the parties filed a revised joint stipulation to extend Arise's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion from April 25 to May 2, and to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint from May 2 to May 9. If this Court determines that the Plaintiff must individually arbitrate her claims, as other courts faced with the same agreements have held, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is moot. Arise provides business process outsourcing and consulting services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cSUwZl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dora V. Lane, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 5470 Kietzke Lane, Suite 100 Reno, NV 89511-2094 Telephone: (775) 327-3000 Facsimile: (775) 786-6179 E-mail: dlane@hollandhart.com - and - Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq. Katy (Yin Yee) Ho, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com kho@omm.com AUTODESK INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman urges Autodesk, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSK) investors who suffered substantial losses to take action now by submitting your losses here. Class Period: June 1, 2023 -- Apr. 16, 2024 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 24, 2024 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/adsk Contact An Attorney Now: ADSK@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Autodesk, Inc. (ADSK) Securities Fraud Class Action: Autodesk, a software company empowering design and engineering professionals, has been hit with an investor class action after a recent disclosure raised concerns about the propriety of its financial reporting practices. Just months ago, in Mar. 2024, Autodesk boasted impressive financial results. The company reported a strong non-GAAP operating margin of 36% and healthy free cash flow of $427 million for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2024. This positive news sent the stock price soaring, closing $6.57 higher on Mar. 1. However, the rosy picture painted by Autodesk may not have been entirely accurate. A recent investor class action lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives made misleading statements and failed to disclose internal control deficiencies related to its free cash flow and non-GAAP operating margin calculations. Investor confidence took a sharp turn on Apr. 1, 2024, when Autodesk announced a delay in filing its annual financial statements for the fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2024. The company revealed that management identified issues with its free cash flow and non-GAAP operating margin practices. This prompted the company's Audit Committee to launch an internal investigation and notify the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Following this news, the price of Autodesk shares plummeted by $10.73 on Apr. 2. "We are investigating whether Autodesk may have inflated its operating margin and free cash to make it seem financially stronger than it really was," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Autodesk 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 ADSK@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Attorney advertising. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AYLO HOLDINGS S.A.R.L.; AYLO FREESITES, LTD. d/b/a/ "PORNHUB"; AYLO USA INC.; AYLO GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT INC.; 9219-1568 QUEBEC, INC.; TOQON, LLC; AYLO BILLING LTD.; AYLO BILLING US CORP.; and AYLO CY HOLDINGS LTD, Defendants, Case 2:24-cv-03267 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2024) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant Pornhub extracts vast amounts of data from and about its users. This information includes browser and operating system information, devices used to access the Pornhub website, time zone settings, and online identifiers like internet protocol addresses. Pornhub then uses that information to glean demographics of its users for what's called "targeted advertising," traditionally by age and gender. Pornhub also extracts other user data, including what videos users view on the website and their sexual predilections, the latter via the use of so-called video "tags." This data is sent to servers where it is indexed and profiled for potential advertisers. This practice allows Pornhub to offer "advanced targeting" of users to those advertisers, allowing them to target campaigns to users based on keywords, search terms, and contextual targets, including the identity and frequency of video tags associated with users' viewing habits. Thus, Pornhub harvests and monetizes vast amounts of user data that it shares with advertisers and other companies, says the suit. AYLO HOLDINGS S.A.R.L. (formerly MindGeek and Manwin) is a Canadian multinational adult entertainment conglomerate owned by Canadian private equity firm Ethical Capital Partners. It is primarily involved in internet pornography, operating a number of video sharing websites (including platforms such as Pornhub, RedTube, and YouPorn), and pornographic film studios such as Brazzers, Digital Playground, Men.com, Reality Kings, Sean Cody, and WhyNotBi.com, among others. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Email: jrotter@glancylaw.com - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com kleeviraphan@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - David M. Given, Esq. Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq. PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP 39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 – The Presidio San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 398-0900 Email: dmg@phillaw.com nac@phillaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Oral Argument on Renewed Bid for Remand Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY NELSON and KAYLEIGH POTTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASS'N., Case No. 5:23-cv-00255-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sanchez entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' letter request to schedule oral argument on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Remand in advance of the scheduled argument on the pending Motions for Class Certification, Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment. The parties are advised that oral argument shall proceed on ALL pending motions, including the Motion for Remand on Wednesday, June 5, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 14B. Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individuals, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZLyRJ at no extra charge.[CC] BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Illinois GIPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Banner Life Insurance Company has violated an Illinois privacy law by requesting genetic information in the form of family medical histories to assess eligibility for life insurance coverage. The 12-page case alleges Banner Life Insurance Company has run afoul of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), a law that prohibits insurers from using protected genetic health information for underwriting purposes, including for the assessment of a person's eligibility for coverage. The lawsuit relays that Banner, as part of its underwriting process, requires prospective customers to undergo a physical examination that includes the collection of information concerning the manifestation of diseases in family members, and then uses that data to assess their eligibility for coverage. Per the case, the GIPA parameters for genetic information include details pertaining to a person's genetic tests, the genetic tests of the person's family members, the "manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members" of the individual, or any request for, or receipt of, genetic services by the individual or any of their family members. "In requiring prospective customers, such as Plaintiff, to disclose their family medical histories, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' and other putative Class members' statutory right to genetic privacy," the lawsuit summarizes. According to the lawsuit, the GIPA stipulates that an insurer may not use genetic information for underwriting purposes -- specifically for: -- Determining the rules for eligibility for benefits, determining whether someone is eligible for benefits, or determining the benefits under the plan, coverage, or policy; -- The calculation of premium or contribution amounts under the plan, coverage or policy; -- The application of any pre-existing condition exclusion under the plan, coverage or policy; and -- Other activities related to the creation, renewal or replacement of a contract of health insurance or health benefits. The lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who applied for insurance coverage with Banner Life Insurance Company in Illinois and from whom the company, or an agent acting on its behalf, requested and/or obtained family medical history or other genetic information within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] BARILLA AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Sinatro Continued to May 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sinatro, et al., v. Barilla America, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460 (N.D. Cal., Filed June 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order setting motion and deadlines / hearings order: -- The parties that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion to exclude defendant's class certification expert robin cantor and further CMC have been continued to May 23, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. in Oakland -- Videoconference Only. The nature of suit Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Barilla is family-owned Pasta company.[CC] BARILLA AMERICA: Diaz Sues Over Pasta Sauces "No Preservative" Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRISTINA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00655-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla., March 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, violations of Florida Statute and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from Barilla's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Tomato Basil, Fire Roasted Marinara, Marinara, Traditional and Roasted Garlic pasta sauces. Barilla marketed and sold the products using a front label which prominently displayed "No Preservative." However, the claims is false because the products contain a significant amount of citric acid. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the Classes have suffered injury in fact and lost money, says the suit. Barilla America, Inc. is a food company, headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P.A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. A Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 567-1230 Email: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com BBBB BONDING: Benton Suit Moved to the E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL BENTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BBBB BONDING CORPORATION; CLIFFORD JEFFREY STANLEY; ROBERT HILL-VENN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for the the Eastern District of California on May 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00562 to the proceeding. BBBB BONDING CORPORATION operates as a bail bond company. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq. Peter E. Garrell, Esq. GARRELL COHON KENNEDY LLP 550 S Hope Street, Suite 460 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 647-0730 Facsimile: (213) 647-0732 Email: jcohon@gckllp.com BINANCE HOLDINGS: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino of Canadian Lawyer reports that in a recent ruling, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action lawsuit against crypto asset trading platform Binance Holdings Limited. The plaintiffs, representing Canadian retail purchasers of cryptocurrency derivative products, have sued for damages and rescission of contracts, alleging illegal sales by Binance due to its failure to register under the Ontario Securities Act (OSA) or to file a prospectus. Binance, a Cayman Islands company, and its Canadian subsidiaries are accused of marketing and selling cryptocurrency derivatives to Canadian investors from 2019 to 2023 without the necessary registrations. This certification is part of a broader scrutiny under which Binance has come under various regulatory radars, including prior actions by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) due to non-compliance with securities laws.During the period in question, Binance enabled customers to trade in three types of cryptocurrency derivatives -- futures, options, and leveraged tokens -- via its online platform. These products, recognized as securities under the OSA, were available to Canadian users through a streamlined online setup process described as a "click contract." In detailing its operations, Binance promoted a unified ecosystem approach, presenting all associated entities as part of a single operational network. This effectively blurred the lines of individual responsibility within the corporate structure. However, at no point did Binance or its subsidiaries obtain the necessary regulatory approvals to operate as a securities dealer or distributor in Canada, thus contravening the OSA. The certification motion focused on whether the class action could adequately address the issues at stake without descending into individual claim assessments. The Superior Court found a commonality in the allegations, particularly the failure to comply with regulatory requirements, which could be collectively addressed. Furthermore, the court dismissed Binance's arguments against rescission, a remedy seeking to return parties to their pre-contractual state, citing a lack of evidence that such a measure would be unfeasible or inappropriate on a class-wide basis. As a result of the court’s decision, the class action will proceed, encompassing all Canadian purchasers of Binance's cryptocurrency derivatives within the specified period. The plaintiffs aim to establish that Binance’s lack of compliance with securities laws resulted in the illegal sale of financial products, warranting damages and rescission for affected investors. Legal proceedings against Binance continue to develop, with the company also settling regulatory disputes in the United States. [GN] BONNIE PLANTS: Collects Data Without Consent, Engelkens Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BLAZE ENGELKENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONNIE PLANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03603 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2024) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in unlawful collection, obtainment, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and biometric information (collectively referred to herein as "biometric data" and "biometrics"). The Defendant disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated the Plaintiff's biometric information (1) without the Plaintiff's consent; (2) without the Plaintiff's authorization to complete a financial transaction requested or authorized by the Plaintiff; (3) without being required by State or federal law or municipal ordinance; or (4) without being required pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, says the suit. BONNIE PLANTS, LLC operates general farms that produce crops. The Company supplies vegetables, herbs, and flowers to retail stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERIC ROLAND, JOSE ANTONIO RAMOS LIMA, FLAVIO LIMA HERCULANO, ALTINO BARROS, and JAILSON PIRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a CARDINAL HOME DELIVERY CARRIERS, Case No. 1:23-cv-11586-AK (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for Class Certification. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in this case was set, by court order, for May 1, 2024. Since the Court's order, the Plaintiffs have amended their Complaint on three separate occasions to add new Plaintiffs. In addition, over the past few months, the Parties have engaged in written discovery, with the Defendant issuing discovery requests to the additional Plaintiffs as they were added. The Plaintiffs have only received discovery responses and documents from the Defendant this week. The Defendant only received further discovery responses from Plaintiff, Altino Barros on April 18, 2024. Cardinal is a national provider of transportation and logistics solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6b8Mvt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - James W. Simpson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES W. SIMPSON, JR., P.C. 100 Concord St., Ste. 3B Framingham, MA 01702 Telephone: (508) 872-0002 E-mail: james@simpsonlawoffices.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Fay, Esq. Alexis D. McLachlan, Esq. FAY LAW GROUP, LLC One Boston Place, 26th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 826-6006 Facsimile: (617) 941-7100 E-mail: afay@faylawgrp.com amclachlan@faylawgrp.com CATALENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novo Holdings ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are now investigating: a. Catalent, Inc. (NYSE: CTLT ), relating to its proposed sale to Novo Holdings. Under the terms of the agreement, CTLT shareholders will receive $63.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/catalent-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. b. McGrath RentCorp (Nasdaq: MGRC ), relating to its proposed sale to WillScot Mobile Mini Holdings Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, MGRC shareholders will receive either $123.00 in cash or 2.8211 shares of WillScot per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/mcgrath-rentcorp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. c. Chord Energy Corp. (Nasdaq: CHRD ), relating to its proposed merger with Enerplus Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, Enerplus shareholders are expected to receive 0.10125 shares of Chord plus $1.84 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chord-energy-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. d. HireRight Holdings Corp. (NYSE: HRT ), relating to its proposed sale to affiliates of General Atlantic, L.P. and Stone Point Capital LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, HRT shareholders are expected to receive $14.35 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/hireright-holdings-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Matlick Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change Healthcare Inc. The case is styled as Lonny David Matlick doing business as: Lonny D. Matlick, D.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Inc., Optum, Inc., Unitedhealth Group Incorporated, Case No. 3:24-cv-04364-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., March 28, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Aceves Sues Over Sale of Crypto Currency --------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO ACEVES; THOMAS FAN; EDWIN MARTINEZ; TIFFANY SMOOT; EDOUARD CORDI; and BRETT MAGGARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; COINBASE, INC.; COINBASE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; and BRIAN ARMSTRONG, Defendants, Case 3:24-cv-02663 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2024) alleges violation of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, Coinbase has knowingly, intentionally, and repeatedly violated state securities laws since it began doing business. Indeed, it admits in its User Agreement that is a "Securities Broker," that the Digital Asset Securities sold by Coinbase are "financial assets", Coinbase is a "securities intermediary", and that the Digital Asset Wallets custodially held by Coinbase are "securities account." When Coinbase filed with the states and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to become a public company a few years ago, it disclosed that its business involved selling securities but that it was not registered to do so. In drafting its User Agreement with the investors and other customers, Coinbase specifically identifies the crypto assets it sells as "securities." And yet, Coinbase has never registered itself, its people, or the crypto securities it sells, says the suit. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. provides financial solutions. The Company offers platform to buy and sell cryptocurrencies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Securities Claims Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Compass Minerals International Inc. (NYSE: CMP) between November 29, 2023 and March 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Compass Minerals investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Compass Minerals class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8924 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) Compass Minerals overstated the likelihood that it would be awarded a renewed U.S. Forest Service contract for the use of its proprietary magnesium chloride-based aerial fire retardants for the 2024 fire season, as a result of safety issues presented by its fire retardant; (2) Compass Minerals materially overstated the extent to which testing had confirmed that its fire retardants were safe; and (3) 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 24, 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=8924 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. 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] CONCORD SERVICING: Faces Hartshorn FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concord Servicing LLC. The case is captioned as DOLORES HARTSHORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCORD SERVICING LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02077-MCA-JSA (D.N.J., March 8, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Concord Servicing LLC is a loan servicing technology based in Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com EMERGE CANADA: Proposed ETF Class Action Lawsuit Discontinued ------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Shin, writing for Investment Executive, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit filed against former fund manager Emerge Canada Inc. will not be proceeding because "the prospect of recovery is nil," the lawyer for the class says. "I would express tremendous disappointment that we were unable to pursue this case," said Garth Myers, partner with Kalloghlian Myers LLP in Toronto. "We think the allegations continue to have merit." Myers said the reason for discontinuing the case is based entirely on financial factors. He said his firm applied to Ontario's class proceedings fund "for disbursements and an adverse cost indemnity, and we were denied." As part of that application process, Myers said he was advised that Emerge Canada "has no assets or insurance," and that Emerge's insurance lapsed before the notice of action in the case was filed. Myers said he will mail a motion of discontinuance to Emerge's lawyer, adding that a court must provide permission to discontinue the case. The proposed class action was filed on June 12, 2023, and had not been certified. The action alleged that unitholders suffered damages because of Emerge's misconduct as well as the prolonged cease-trade order under which its 11 ETFs were placed. That unprecedented cease-trade order began in April 2023, and lasted until the ETFs were delisted in October. Unitholders remained trapped in the ETFs until the funds were terminated in December. The allegations in the proposed class action have not been proven, and a lawyer for Emerge Canada did not respond to a request for comment by press time. On May 11, 2023, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) suspended Emerge Canada's registration for capital deficiency, highlighting a receivable owed to five of its Emerge ARK ETFs that had grown to $5.5 million. The receivable totalled $4.69 million as of Dec. 29, 2023, including interest. The former unitholders are now unsecured creditors of Emerge Canada, and no update has been provided about the status of the receivable. The OSC continues to oversee Emerge Canada and require that its activities be monitored by a law firm, though it suspended the registrations of Emerge Canada on Feb. 12. In March, the OSC confirmed that it is investigating Emerge. Myers said the discontinuance of the proposed class action would not prevent former unitholders from making individuals claims against Emerge. "There's no prejudice to the class from our discontinuance," he said. Emerge ETFs timeline -- Nov. 3, 2022: BDO LLP resigns as auditor of the Emerge Canada Inc. funds -- March 31, 2023: Deadline by which Emerge Canada was supposed to file annual audited financial statements -- April 6: Cease-trade order issued on all 11 ETFs managed by Emerge Canada -- April 14: Investment Executive reports that Emerge Canada's suite of six ARK ETFs is owed more than $2.5 million in receivables from Emerge -- May 11: Emerge Canada suspended for capital deficiency -- July 14: Liquidation date for the U.S. versions of the five EMPWR ETFs -- August: In documents filed with the Erie County Clerk, a woman hired in February 2022 as an executive assistant with Buffalo, N.Y.-based Emerge Capital Management Inc. alleges she was not paid wages from Dec. 16, 2022, until March 6, 2023 -- Sept. 15: Five U.S. EMPWR ETFs apply to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to deregister -- October: Three employees of Emerge Canada Inc. file a notice of motion against CEO Lisa Langley and Emerge Capital Management Inc. for failing to repay nearly US$200,000 they lent the firm earlier in the year -- Oct. 31: Date of Emerge Canada ETF liquidations -- Dec. 20: Pro rata shares paid out to unitholders "on or before" this date; ETFs without receivables terminated -- Dec. 29: Termination date of the five Emerge ARK ETFs with outstanding receivables -- Jan. 5: Emerge announces its unitholders have become unsecured creditors [GN] EMPIRE AUTO: Misner Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Auto Protect, LLC. The case is captioned as BRADY MISNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPIRE AUTO PROTECT, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01282-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 8, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Empire Auto Protect, LLC is a vehicle service plan company doing business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com EVENT WORKFORCE: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENT WORKFORCE GROUP (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01876-JPC (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://rosterfy.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members from enjoying the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. Further, these access barriers deter the Plaintiff and the Class on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website in the future without the aid of a sighted person to help them navigate, which is antithetical to the freedoms promised to the visually impaired by the passage of federal and state disability civil rights legislation. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Event Workforce Group (USA) Inc., doing business as Rosterfy, is a company that sells goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 EVOLV TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Product Effectiveness --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Mintzer, writing for WKRN.COM, reports that a weapons detection technology company used by schools and venues across Tennessee is being sued. The class action lawsuit against Evolv Technology alleges the publicly traded company lied about the effectiveness of its artificial intelligence-powered weapons detection scanners. Evolv's scanners are used at Nissan Stadium, Bridgestone Arena, Clarksville-Montgomery County Schools and Rutherford County schools to name a few. The company advertises its technology as a replacement for metal detectors that can detect guns, knives and bombs on people as they enter a building. In a 39-page lawsuit, plaintiffs say they were deceived by Evolv and the system, "does not reliably detect knives or guns." The plaintiffs go on to allege Evolv had, "taken significant action to make it appear that its products were effective, including manipulating test results. The lawsuit references a 2022 Evolv blog post saying they had "third-party validation" of the scanner's effectiveness. However, the suit includes screenshots of test results pulled from news articles and posts by another security company claiming to show Evolv's technology is not as effective as advertised. The court documents also contain a screenshot of an email from Evolv's Vice President of Technical Sales to the group producing the third-party report with edits to the final document. "Evolv was heavily involved in the decision-making and language of the final report issued," the plaintiffs claim. In a statement to News 2, Evolv said they can't comment on any pending litigation. "We stand behind our technology and are proud to partner with hundreds of security professionals around the world." The plaintiffs suing Evolv are demanding a jury trial and asking for compensation for the alleged lies. Clarksville-Montgomery and Rutherford County Schools are both piloting an Evolv system and said they are still in the trial phase and continuing to monitor and test the technology. [GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Humphrey Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as DEANNA HUMPHREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-00524-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an information services company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, No. 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Philip Ross Goldberg, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL PA 11045 Camarillo Street, No 116 North Hollywood, CA 91602 Telephone: (773) 388-2784 Facsimile: (855) 205-4380 Email: pgoldberg@seraphlegal.com FUSION SPONSOR LLC: Martel Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FUSION SPONSOR LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kyle Martel and Joe Bryant, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated v. FUSION SPONSOR LLC, JOHN JAMES, JEFFREY GARY, JIM ROSS, KELLY DRISCOLL, BEN BUETTELL, DIWAKAR CHOUBEY and BROADHAVEN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 2024-0329-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., March 29, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Action." Fusion Sponsor LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. Jason M. Avellino, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7000 Email: ktucker@gelaw.com javellino@gelaw.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Adam J. Blander, Esq. Timothy D. Brennan, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 759-4600 Fax: (212) 486-2093 Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com ablander@wolfpopper.com tbrennan@wolfpopper.com - and - Michael Klausner, Esq. 559 Nathon Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Phone: (650) 740-1194 Email: klausner@stanford.edu GENERAL MOTORS: Block Sues Over Tracking of Driving Behavior Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Block and Charles Justus, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR LLC, and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10824-JJCG-CI (E.D. Mich., March 31, 2024), is brought arising from the clandestine tracking, interception, transmission, and collection of Americans' driving behavior data with secret computer systems automatically installed in their vehicles or on their cellular telephones. Recently unveiled in a March 11, 2024 New York Times article, these electronics were also carrying out a more nefarious purpose: the secret tracking, interception, transmission, and collection of millions of drivers' personal driving behavior data, which was then sold by GM and OnStar through intermediaries such as LexisNexis Risk Solutions to automobile insurance companies, who in turn used the data to increase drivers' vehicle insurance premiums. The information collected included what LexisNexis calls "telematics data," which itself includes acceleration events, hard brake events, high speed events, distance traveled, time of day traveled, vehicle information such as VINs, and sometimes location data and GPS data. The Plaintiffs are just two of the millions of drivers of GM manufactured vehicles who have had their data secretly intercepted and used in this illegal scheme. They bring this action for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all persons whose driver behavior data was impacted by Defendants' illegal conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are natural persons, and are residents and citizens of Florida. GM manufactures and sells vehicles in the United States and across the world, including Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick branded vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Alexander C. Cohen, Esq. Facundo M. Scialpi, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com acohen@rgrdlaw.com fscialpi@rgrdlaw.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & ROGERS, P.A. 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Phone: 561/ 944-3437 Email: mwites@witeslaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that car manufacturer General Motors (GM) is the subject of litigation in Georgia by two New Jersey Chevy Bolt drivers who allege that GM collected data about their driving habits and behavior and disclosed it to third parties, including insurance companies, causing them to pay higher insurance rates and experience difficulty in obtaining reasonable premiums. They allege that they did not agree to the collection and disclosure and that it was a breach of contract and their privacy. The crux of the case alleges that GM collected their driving habits and behavior and then shared it with third parties, including OnStar, insurance carriers, and others. Although the plaintiffs admit they were enrolled in OnStar, they did not agree to have their data transmitted to third parties. The case illustrates how data from vehicles can be collected and disclosed and reminds us to review applicable privacy policies whenever interacting with any technology, including vehicles. Privacy policies and pop-ups are designed to provide consumers with information about how data is collected, used, and disclosed, and when downloading an app to any device (including a vehicle), it is important to read the notices and set privacy settings in each instance. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: King Sues Over Erroneous Reports ------------------------------------------------ Michael King and Gus Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; OnStar LLC; And LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02560-ODW-MAA (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2024), is brought for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act and to challenge the actions of Defendants regarding erroneous reports of derogatory and negative driving information made without Plaintiffs' knowledge and/or consent, and the illegal transfer and publication of same. GM and OnStar illegally furnished Plaintiffs' private driving information to Lexis without their knowledge and/or consent, which Lexis utilized to prepare consumer disclosures available for public consumption, including car insurance companies. Lexis' consumer disclosures contain each driving event, including trip details that show the start date, end date, start time, end time, acceleration events, hard brake events, high speed events, distance, and VIN. Notably absent from these consumer disclosures is any context related to these driving events. The consumer reports do not define what these events mean nor how they are calculated. Furthermore, the reports do not explain how or why someone might have experienced these events. Stating these events, by themselves, says nothing of the other driving conditions and factors one may have experienced. The only way for telematics data to reach insurance companies is if someone "opts-in" with their insurance company to get a safe driving discount. Plaintiffs never opted into any insurance program that would have allowed their information to be shared. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that General Motors and OnStar sold and/or shared their driving data to Lexis without their knowledge and/or consent. The uncontextualized, misleading, and personal driving information on their consumer disclosures harmed Plaintiffs by significantly raising their insurance premiums and/or resulting in the denial of coverage. Additionally, the data presented on the Lexis consumer disclosure is so decontextualized that it can hardly be called accurate. Nevertheless, insurance companies rely upon these consumer reports to determine pricing and eligibility. Moreover, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that GM and OnStar mislead individuals about their data sharing practices. Plaintiffs never knowingly consented to these practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in the State of California and are "consumers." GM is a corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Schmidt, Esq. SCHMIDT NATIONAL LAW GROUP 3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 335 San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (800) 631-5656 Facsimile: (619) 393-1777 Email: mschmidt@nationalinjuryadvocates.com - and - Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33317 Phone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 Email: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com jonathan@schlesingerlaw.com scott@schlesingerlaw.com GLOBAL CORD: Faces Class Action Over Conflicted Transactions ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Global Cord Blood Corporation (NYSE: CO) securities between June 4, 2019 and May 3, 2022. Global Cord Blood provides umbilical cord blood storage and ancillary services in the in the Beijing Municipality, Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang Province of the People's Republic of China. 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 the Board of Global Cord Blood Corporation (CO) Engaged in Self-Serving and Conflicted Transactions According to the complaint, during the class period, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Global Cord employed a capital allocation strategy designed to reserve funds for Company insiders and related parties rather than for the benefit of Company shareholders; (ii) Global Cord's decisions to reject multiple going private offers and enter into the Transaction were nothing more than self-serving and conflicted attempts by Defendants to divert company funds to corporate insiders and related parties; (iii) Defendants fundamentally misrepresented to investors Global Cord's approach to capital allocation, strategic investments, acquisitions, and related party transactions as a result of the misappropriation by Defendant Kam and his entities of hundreds of millions of dollars from the Company; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result, the Company's stock has declined, harming investors. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Global Cord Blood Corporation Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by June 24, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Global Cord Blood Corporation 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. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] GLOBAL K9: Faces Colindres Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- ANA NOH COLINDRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP LLC, an Alabama limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV06045 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act including failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide uninterrupted meal breaks; failure to reimburse for required business expenses; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a canine handler from April 2023 through November 2023. Global K9 Protection Group LLC is a security guard service provider doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. Hilary Silvia, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com hilary@koullaw.com GREAT LAKES: Faces Anderson Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- RASHAWNA CRYSTIAN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION, LLC, GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA BOTTLING, LLC, REYES COCA-COLA BOTTLING, LLC, and REYES HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02074 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately July 11, 2023, through October 6, 2023. Great Lakes Coca-Cola Distribution, LLC, is a distributor of Coca-Cola brands based in Chicago, Illinois. Great Lakes Coca-Cola Bottling, LLC is a beverage company based in Chicago, Illinois. Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, LLC is a distributor of Coca-Cola brands headquartered in California. Reyes Holdings, LLC is an American food and beverage distributor and bottler headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com HEY FAVOR: Ct. Sets Hearing on Bid to Stay Consideration -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELL SANFORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEY FAVOR, INC., et al., Case No. 23-04038-elm (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: (1) Setting hearing on Defendants' emergency motion to stay consideration of class certification issues, (2) Establishing responsive deadlines, and (3) Granting bridge extension of deadline pending outcome of Hearing. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iU2dMm at no extra charge.[CC] HIWASSEE ACRES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HIWASSEE ACRES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03006-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.adamscountywinery.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. HIWASSEE ACRES, LLC provides to the public a website known as Adamscountywinery.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view different types of wines, including white, and red, as well as specialty wines such as dessert and fruit-flavored options. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. Manhasset, NY 11030 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Tel: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com HPG PIZZA: Seeks to Strike Opperman's Declaration in Mighell ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE MIGHELL, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. HPG PIZZA I, LLC, HPG PIZZA II, LLC ROB PRANGE, DOE CORPORATION 1-12, AND JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 1:23-cv-02533-SKC-MEH (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to strike Declaration of Daniel Opperman filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Here, Mr. Opperman's declaration should be stricken in its entirety because it is inadmissible and misleading. The Plaintiff has no good faith basis whatsoever to claim that Mr. Opperman ever worked as a driver for HPG Pizza I, LLC or HPG Pizza II, LLC. Therefore, Mr. Opperman has no basis whatsoever for providing testimony in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification as to how HPG Pizza I, LLC or HPG Pizza II, LLC reimbursed their drivers for expenses. Especially given the fact that the Plaintiff's counsel knows that Mr. Opperman was never a driver for these employer Defendants, the Plaintiff's attempt to use the Opperman Declaration in such a blatantly deceptive way cannot go unaddressed. The Opperman Declaration should therefore be stricken in its entirety. Mr. Daniel Opperman was employed as a delivery driver from January 2021 to September 2021 at a Papa Johns in Fountain, Colorado owned by DCT Enterprises. In September of 2021, Opperman was promoted to the position of general manager. On March 21, 2022—after Opperman was no longer employed as a delivery driver—the Fountain Papa Johns store was purchased by the Defendant HPG Pizza II, LLC. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahOGDW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Joseph Scherpenberg, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com jscherpenberg@billerkimble.com The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. Hillary R. Ross, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3650 E-mail: mdawson@fisherphillips.com hross@fisherphillips.com INTRINSIC TRADING: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intrinsic Trading LLC. The case is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intrinsic Trading LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-01096-JMB-LIB (D. Minn., March 28, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Intrinsic Trading -- https://intrinsictrading.com/ -- is a world leader in manufacturing natural gemstone beads, pendants, matching earring pairs, and cabochons.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com JOYOUS PBC: Faces Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations ----------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOYOUS PBC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02357-JCS (S.D. Cal., April 19, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who have accessed and used www.joyous.team (the "Website"), a website Defendant owns and operates, alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids employs, agrees, and conspires with Meta, Google, and Twilio (together, the "Third Parties") to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing protected medical information. Pursuant to the systematic process described herein, the Defendant assisted the Third Parties with intercepting Plaintiff's communications, including those that contained personally identifiable information, protected health information, and related confidential information. Defendant aided and assisted these interceptions without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or express written authorization. After placing her order from the Website, Plaintiff began receiving targeted advertisements from Joyous and other advertisements related to ketamine therapy on Facebook and other internet sites. By failing to receive the requisite consent, Defendant breached its duties of confidentiality and unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's PII and PHI, says the suit. JOYOUS PBC is a Public Benefit Corporation specializing in providing low-dose ketamine treatment to empower patients facing a spectrum of mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, PTSD, OCD, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com KLUGEX INC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Klugex, Inc. The case is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Klugex, Inc. doing business as: Blackhillsgold.direct, Case No. 0:24-cv-01085-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., March 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Klugex, Inc. doing business as Blackhillsgold.direct -- https://blackhillsgold.direct/ -- offers a large selection of black hills gold and silver jewelry at discounted prices.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com LAKE CONSUMER: Pineda Files Real Property Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake Consumer Products, Inc. The case is captioned as LORISA PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAKE CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-01074-JMG (E.D. Pa., March 12, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged real property violations. Lake Consumer Products, Inc. is a sales and marketing agency headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market St., Ste. 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com LEMONADE INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Hilbert Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEMONADE, INC. and LEMONADE INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01873-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members from enjoying the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. Further, these access barriers deter the Plaintiff and the Class on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website in the future without the aid of a sighted person to help them navigate, which is antithetical to the freedoms promised to the visually impaired by the passage of federal and state disability civil rights legislation. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Lemonade, Inc. is a company that sells goods and services online, doing business in New York. Lemonade Insurance Agency, LLC is a company that sells goods and services online, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 LENS.COM INC: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rickey Martin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Lens.com, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CACE-24-002448 was removed from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Lens.com -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is an online website that supplies a wide variety of contact lenses from different brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com - and - Matthew Herman, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS LLC 3 N 2nd Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 The Defendant is represented by: James W. Lee, Esq. Laselve Elijah Harrison, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER, FLEXNER LLP 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite #2800 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 359-8400 Fax: (305) 539-1307 Email: jlee@bsfllp.com lharrison@bsfllp.com - and - Jed H. Hansen, Esq. Joseph M. Harmer, Esq. Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq. THORPE NORTH & WESTERN LLP The Walker Center, Suite 900 175 S Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 566-6633 Email: hansen@tnw.com joseph.harmer@tnw.com mark.bettilyon@tnw.com LENS.COM INC: Nail Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adam Nail, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lens.com, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05473 was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02531-SB-E to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Lens.com -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is an online website that supplies a wide variety of contact lenses from different brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb H. Liang, Esq. Joshua T. Le, Esq. Kevin B Kelly, Esq. LTL Attorneys LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 612-8900 Fax: (213) 612-3773 Email: caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com joshua.le@ltlattorneys.com kevin.kelly@ltlattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Jed H. Hansen, Esq. Joseph M. Harmer, Esq. Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq. THORPE NORTH AND WESTERN LLP 175 South Main Street Suite 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 566-6633 Fax: (801) 566-0750 Email: hansen@tnw.com joseph.harmer@tnw.com mark.bettilyon@tnw.com - and - Benjamin Juhyeok Kim, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 629-9040 Fax: (213) 629-9022 Email: bkim@bsfllp.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln National Corporation ("Lincoln National" or the "Company") (NYSE: LNC). Such investors are advised to 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. The class action concerns whether Lincoln National and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until June 24, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln National securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On November 2, 2022, after the market closed, Lincoln National released its third quarter 2022 financial results, reporting a net loss of $2.6 billion for the quarter. This was compared to a net income of $318 million for the third quarter of 2021 the previous year. Lincoln National stated that "[t]he current quarter's adjusted operating results included net unfavorable notable items of $2.0 billion, or $11.62 per share, related to the company's annual review of DAC and reserve assumptions." The Company also disclosed that it "incurred a $634 million goodwill impairment to the life insurance business." On this news, Lincoln National's stock price fell $17.27 per share, or 33.2%, to close at $34.83 per share on November 3, 2022. 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. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] LUCKY BRANDS: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUCKY BRANDS, Case No. 23-09310, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 12, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01076-GEKP to the proceeding. The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lucky Brands is a clothing company doing business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Oropallo, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON, LLP Barclay Damon Tower 125 East Jefferson Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 425-2831 Facsimile: (315) 703-7367 Email: moropallo@barclaydamon.com MATCH GROUP: Mendoza Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MICHAEL MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATCH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2024CH00728, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01981 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Thomas Burley, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 110 North Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-8639 Email: dburley@perkinscoie.com - and - Hayden Marshall Schottlaender, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 965-7724 Email: HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com - and - Nicola Menaldo, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-3787 Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com MATCH GROUP: Whitman Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JOSHUA WHITMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATCH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2024CH00727, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01987 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Thomas Burley, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 110 North Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-8639 Email: dburley@perkinscoie.com - and - Hayden Marshall Schottlaender, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 965-7724 Email: HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com - and - Nicola Menaldo, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-3787 Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com MAY DYNASTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- FENG SHAN HAN; and LE ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAY DYNASTY LLC d/b/a Crazy Dumpling; and QUN SHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00654 (E.D. Va., April 19, 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. Plaintiffs Han and Zhang were employed by the Defendants as a stir-fry cook and as a kitchen staff, respectively. MAY DYNASTY LLC d/b/a Crazy Dumpling operates as a Chinese restaurant in Fredericksburg, VA 22406. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com MDL 3100: Panel Denies Transfer of 9 Suits Due to Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In "In re: Real Estate Commission Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3100, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the transfer of two cases each from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the Eastern District of Texas, and one each from the Northern District of California, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of New York, Western District of Pennsylvania and the District of South Carolina, to the Western District of Missouri. All actions on the motion are brought on behalf of sellers of residential real estate, alleging various aspects of rules governing buyer broker compensation violate antitrust laws. Defendant, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is a national trade association of real estate brokers and agents. Plaintiffs in several of these actions allege that certain NAR rules require sellers to make a comprehensive, unilateral, and (in practice) non-negotiable offer of compensation to any broker representing potential buyers as a condition of listing their home on a multiple listing service (MLS). Plaintiffs allege that enforcement of this rule results in price fixing, which has artificially inflated residential real estate broker commissions paid by home sellers. On March 15, 2024, NAR announced that it had reached a nationwide class settlement that will resolve claims against NAR, over one million NAR members, all state/territorial and local REALTOR(R) associations, all association-owned MLSs, and all brokerages with an NAR member as principal that had a residential transaction volume in 2022 of $2 billion or below. Given the broad contours of this new settlement agreement and the changing landscape of the parties' positions on centralization, the panel decided to deny centralization at this time as the settlement may well resolve at least some claims in this litigation, if not many. A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3100-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-24.pdf MDL 3101: 10 Suits Consolidated in Baby Food Contamination Row -------------------------------------------------------------- In "In re: Baby Food Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II)," MDL No. 3101, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, two each from the Central District of California and the District of Nevada and one each from the District of Arizona and the Western District of Missouri, all to the Northern District of California and assigning them to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All responding plaintiffs support centralization while all responding defendants oppose centralization. Plaintiffs, who are minors, allege they were exposed to elevated quantities of toxic heavy metals (namely, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury) from consuming defendants' baby food products and, as a result, suffered brain injury that manifested in diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). All actions share common issues of fact regarding the presence of heavy metals in defendants' products, their knowledge of and testing for heavy metals in their products, whether the presence of these heavy metals could have caused plaintiffs' alleged injuries, and whether defendants adequately warned of the presence of heavy metals in their products. Opponents of centralization argue that each defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes its own baby food products subject to different manufacturing processes, suppliers, and quality control procedures and there will undoubtedly be significant differences between the claims against each defendant. However, the panel rules that a complete identity or even a majority of common factual or legal issues is not a prerequisite to transfer as there will likely will be overlap in the discovery as to the defendants, who plaintiffs allege had "co-manufacturing" agreements as to their baby food products and shared third-party testing agencies. Common expert discovery, as to both plaintiffs and defendants, also is probable. "Centralization will facilitate a uniform and efficient pretrial approach to this litigation, eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings on expert testimony and other pretrial issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary," adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3101-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf MDL 3102: Four Suits Consolidated in Tithe Mismanagement Row ------------------------------------------------------------ In "In re: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Tithing Litigation," MDL No. 3102, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one case each from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Middle District of Tennessee, District of Utah and the Eastern District of Washington, all to the District of Utah and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Robert J. Shelby for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All parties support centralization. All actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that the Church falsely represented that tithes paid by its members would be used solely for charitable and humanitarian purposes while instead allowing tithes to accumulate in investment accounts, hiding the extent of its wealth from Church members, and spending tithing monies for commercial purposes. In particular, plaintiffs (current or former Church members) claim that Church leaders publicly stated that no tithing monies would be used to develop the City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City, but that such monies were in fact used for that purpose. Plaintiffs variously assert claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of state consumer protection laws. In addition to seeking damages, plaintiffs in three actions ask that a constructive trust be created to include all inequitably obtained monies and the proceeds derived therefrom. According to the panel, the actions involve common questions of fact relating to statements made by the Church regarding its investment and use of tithing funds, the manner in which tithes have been invested, and the purposes for which they have been spent. All plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide classes. Centralization will avoid duplicative discovery and will prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification, First Amendment issues, expert admissibility issues, and dispositive motions. The panel deems the District of Utah as the transferee district as the Church is headquartered there, and most of the relevant documents and witnesses will be found there. A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3102-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf MDL 3103: Six Suits Transferred to N.D. W. Va. ---------------------------------------------- In "In re: Aflibercept Patent Litigation," MDL No. 3103, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers five cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and one from the Central District of California, all to the Northern District of West Virginia, and assigning them to the Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All actions were brought under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). In each action, Regeneron alleges that the defendant infringed a common set of thirteen U.S. patents covering its ophthalmic drug, "Eylea (R)," by submitting abbreviated Biologics License Applications and seeking to market their follow-on biologic products. Included among those thirteen patents is one -- the '865 Patent -- that already has been held valid and infringed by Judge Kleeh after trial in the first filed Northern District of West Virginia "Mylan" action. Common factual questions will include whether the proposed biosimilar products infringe the patents, the evidence related to claim construction, and patent validity considerations such as the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and obviousness. All defendants oppose centralization. They argue that each action involves dozens of patents -- a total of 63 across all actions -- and that many non-overlapping patents are asserted against each defendant. In addition, some of the common patents relate to manufacturing methods, which defendants claim are unique to each defendant; thus, they argue, they may have different invalidity and non-infringement defenses even to the same patents. Defendants also contend that, because they are competitors and their manufacturing methods are highly confidential, if the litigation is centralized, special discovery protections will be necessary. Defendants maintain that these complexities make this BPCIA litigation significantly different from litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act that the panel typically centralizes and would result in an unmanageable MDL. Given the relatively small number of involved actions, they argue, centralization is not appropriate. "These arguments are not persuasive," rules the panel. "Regeneron asserts a common set of thirteen patents in every action, and every patent asserted against Amgen also is asserted against at least one of the Northern District of West Virginia defendants." The panel opined that the '865 patent, a formulation patent, which already has been found valid and infringed by Mylan, is asserted against all defendants and, according to Regeneron, will be central in every case. Even if there is some variation among defendants' defenses to certain patents, it seems far more efficient to allow a single court to construe the patents at issue and to decide whether injunctive relief is warranted, it adds. A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3103-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf MEDTORQUE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hess Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL HESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTORQUE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00473 (E.D. Wis., April 20, 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. Plaintiff Hess was employed by the Defendant as a machinist. MEDTORQUE, INC. is a manufacturer of orthopedic instruments and implants. [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 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Journal reports that Merritt Healthcare Advisors, a Connecticut mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm for healthcare practices, has agreed to a $1.525 million settlement of a class action stemming from a 2022 data breach. The money will go into a fund to compensate the estimated 88,740 people whose personally identifiable information, private health information, and/or financial information were exposed in the breach. Merritt discovered the security breach on November 30, 2022, and made it public on March 14, 2023. The settlement addresses three class actions filed in 2023 in federal district court for Connecticut that the plaintiffs agreed to consolidate and resolve through mediation. "The negotiations leading to the settlement were contentious and hard-fought," says the settlement proposal submitted to the court. "The resulting settlement reflects an agreement reached at arm's length, in good faith, and free of any collusion." The agreement, which must still be reviewed by the court, includes a separate amount of $508,283 for the plaintiffs' lawyers, Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law and Laura Grace Van Note of Cole & Van Note. [GN] OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Moore Sues Over WARN Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Angela Hanson of Convenience Store News reports that a former employee of Foxtrot Market filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the upscale convenience retailer's parent company, Outfox Hospitality, one day after it abruptly halted all operations. Plaintiff Jamil Moore, who worked at a Foxtrot store in Chicago's Old Town neighborhood, alleges that all employees were terminated without prior notice, which may violate the federal and state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, according to an Axios Chicago report. The WARN ACT requires most companies with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of planned closings and mass layoffs. Moore, who stated that he was terminated mid-shift the morning of April 23 along with other employees who lost their jobs without notice, claims that Outfox Hospitality did not pay out employees' wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, and/or accrued personal time off for the required 60 days. The lawsuit is seeking other class-action members. "The termination of hundreds of employees across the country with no notice is abhorrent and should be made an example of. Hundreds in Chicago alone are now without work," Syed Hussain, Moore's attorney, told USA TODAY. "Employees should never be afraid to stand up for their rights afforded to them. It takes just a few brave people to be at the forefront of this litigation and fight the good fight." The sudden closing of Foxtrot -- which operated 33 convenience stores in Chicago, Washington, D.C., Dallas and Austin, Texas, and two Dom's Kitchen & Market locations -- came less than six months after the companies announced their merger. Foxtrot cofounder Mike LaVitola stepped up to lead the combined company. Earlier this year, Foxtrot was named one of the Top 10 Brands to Watch in 2024 by data analytics firm Placer.ai. No specific reason has been given for the shutdown and Outfox Hospitality has not responded to media requests for comment, but a message on Dom's website stated that the company "explored many avenues to continue the business but found no viable option despite good faith and exhaustive efforts." [GN] PNC BANK: Spencer Sues Over Unlawful Junk Fees ---------------------------------------------- Marcus Spencer, Scott Chang, Jessica Burgess, Jeffrey Williams, and Jennifer Mann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-00357-RJC (W.D. Pa., March 18, 2024), is brought under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") which expressly prohibit "junk fees" where a business reveals unavoidable fees later in the buying process. PNC routinely charges and collects what it refers to as "Return of Deposited Item Fee" fees. By charging these Return of Deposited Item fees, PNC unfairly targeted its customers with financial penalties for faulty checks the customers had no hand in issuing. Plaintiffs were shocked when they were charged these fees because they did nothing wrong yet were penalized by PNC. There was nothing Plaintiffs could do to avoid--or even anticipate--a Return of Deposited Item fee assessed by PNC at the time the deposit was returned. By charging its customers significant fees in situations where the customer did nothing wrong and could not have avoided the fee through reasonable diligence, PNC acted in a manner that is unfair, oppressive, lacks good faith and is against public policy. Recent guidance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") has reaffirmed the unlawful nature of PNC's Return of Deposited Item fee policy. In October 2022, the CFPB issued a compliance bulletin stating that it is an unfair act or practice for an institution to have a blanket policy of charging Return of Deposited Item fees anytime that a check is returned unpaid, irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the account; the CFPB noted that these fees cause substantial monetary injury for each returned item, which consumers cannot reasonably avoid because they lack information about and control over whether a check will clear. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class and Sub-classes, now seek to hold PNC accountable for their unlawful and unfair policy, and seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs held a PNC checking account during the applicable statute of limitations period. PNC, N.A. is a financial services institution engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Pietz, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. John P. Worgul, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-281-8400 Facsimile: 412-281-1007 Email: jpietz@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com jworgul@fdpklaw.com - and - Lisa R. Considine, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. 745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: 212-532-1091 Facsimile: 646-417-5967 Email: lconsidine@sirillp.com ddisabato@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com PREMIUM APPAREL: Dalton Sues Over ADA Violations in D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Apparel LLC. The case is captioned as JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PREMIUM APPAREL LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-00815-JMB-DTS (D. Minn., March 8, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Premium Apparel LLC is a clothing company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 101 55376 St. Michael, MN 55330 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com - and - Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC 222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Facsimile: (763) 226-2515 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Files Contract Suit in M.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al. The case is captioned as MAYRA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00225-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C., March 13, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged breach of insurance contract. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance firm in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 90698 Raleigh, NC 27675 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 Email: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com - and - Kelly Ann Stevens, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C. 5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 Email: kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com RAWLINGS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Settlement Proceeds ------------------------------------------------------------- St. Louis Record reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against The Rawlings Company and related companies. The plaintiffs Martin Zakarian and Mary Jones are representing themselves and others who have similar grievances in the complaint, which was filed in federal court, against The Rawlings Company LLC, Rawlings Financial Services, LLC and Rawlings & Associates PLLC. The plaintiffs allege the defendants improperly calculated Medicare liens on their settlement proceeds without including an offset for procurement costs. Zakarian and Jones both paid these liens under protest. They claim these practices are part of a broader pattern affecting citizens of Kansas since January 2021 and Missouri citizens since January 2019 who settled any lawsuit where the defendants were acting as agents for Medicare. The court has jurisdiction over this case under the Class Action Fairness Act as it involves more than 100 members in each proposed class, with at least one member from a state different from where the defendants are citizens. The amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The defendants are Kentucky-based limited liability companies that do business as "The Rawlings Group," a claims recovery vendor in the healthcare industry. They publicly claim to deliver more net revenue to clients' bottom lines than any other company can deliver. [GN] RAYCEN RAINES: Blalock Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raycen Raines, et al. The case is styled as Shelley Bridges, Lisa Blakemore, Teresa Lukaszewicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Raycen Raines, Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation, WLCC II doing business as: Arrowhead Advance, WLCC Lending BGL doing business as: Bison Green Lending, WLCC Lending JEM doing business as: Explore Credit, WLCC Lending FDL doing business as: Fast Day Loans doing business as: First Day Loan, John Does Nos. 1-40, Case No. 1:24-cv-00087-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C., March 25, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for the Racketeering (RICO) Act. Raycen Raines started the American Horse Tribal Development company and the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gerard Albanese, Esq. Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5999 Fax: (612) 584-4470 Email: jalbanese@bm.net moconnorgrant@bm.net - and - Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: josterwise@bm.net SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Zabransky Sues Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is captioned as SUSAN ZABRANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02133-EP-MAH (D.N.J., March 8, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's breach of contract. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a consumer electronics company based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. Randee M. Matloff, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 Facsimile: (973) 618-9194 Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com rmatloff@nagelrice.com - and - John N. Poulos, Esq. Joseph Lopiccolo, Esq. Anthony Santos Almeida, Esq. POULOS LOPICCOLO PC 1305 South Roller Road Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 673-6264 (732) 757-0165 Email: poulos@pllawfirm.com lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com almeida@pllawfirm.com SANDOZ CANADA: Opioids Class Suit Enters Phase Two of Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- Aidan Macnab of Law Times reports that the Ontario opioids class action is proceeding to the second phase of certification after the court dismissed the defendants' motion to strike the claim. The litigation is part of a nationwide wave of lawsuits brought against manufacturers of the highly addictive painkillers on behalf of Canadians suffering from addiction, their families, and public health insurers. According to Peter Pliszka, counsel for Sandoz Canada Inc., one of the defendants, there are four class actions in Canada targeting the manufacturers and sellers of opioids. One began in BC and is reeking recovery of the healthcare-related costs incurred due to opioid use on behalf of BC, other provinces, and the federal government. Earlier this month, a class action against 16 pharmaceutical companies was authorized in Quebec on behalf of people in that province diagnosed with opioid use disorder since 1996 or their family members if they are deceased. Another was launched by Grande Prairie, Alberta, on behalf of all Canadian municipalities seeking compensation for the costs of social services incurred by municipalities dealing with the fallout from the opioid crisis. Adam Tanel is a partner in Koskie Minsky's class action group and lawyer for the plaintiff in the Ontario-based lawsuit. "This is an action and an issue of, frankly, biblical scope," he says. "The amount of harm visited across the country is just staggering. It leaves no segment of the Canadian population untouched." Tanel says his clients come from "every walk of life" and include babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome as the result of their mothers being addicted to opioids while pregnant. "It's just a horrific toll that has been visited upon Canadians," he says. "The only thing commensurate with how terrible the toll is is how large the profits were that were reaped by the manufacturers of the opioids -- and, we say, the manufacturers of the epidemic." Typically, a certification proceeds as one "holistic" motion, says Tanel. However, the Ontario action was "bifurcated" into two phases because the defendants brought a motion to strike, arguing the plaintiffs failed to plead a cause of action. Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the motion. The defendants had until last week to bring any further related motions. Phase one of the certification process dealt with s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, under which the court shall certify a class proceeding if "the pleadings or the notice of application discloses a cause of action." The parties will now proceed to ss. 5(1)(b) to (e). Sandoz is a defendant in the other three class actions among many other companies. "Sandoz believes that the claims against that are without any merit, and Sandoz is vigorously defending against the claims," says Pliszka, a senior partner in Fasken's litigation group. In the BC class action brought by the provinces and federal government, Sandoz has been granted leave to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of whether the proposed action is unconstitutional. The appeal is set to be heard on May 23 and 24. In the BC case, says Pliszka, the defendants' position is that the provinces fail to meet the "common issues" and the "preferable procedure" elements of the certification test. On common issues, he says the primary claim asserted by the plaintiffs is that the companies lied to the medical community about opioids by presenting them as appropriate to treat long-term, medium-pain conditions and as carrying a low risk of addiction. Sandoz and the other defendants argue there is no evidence they represented the drugs in this way. They are also claiming that the provinces and federal government lack sufficient commonality for a class action because the opioids sold in each province, the nature of each province's illicit market, and the provincial drug plans were different. In assessing the preferable procedure element, says Pliszka, courts have found plaintiffs must show the proposed class action serves three objectives: access to justice, judicial economy, and ameliorating the defendants' allegedly improper past behaviour. The defendants argue the proposed class members fall short on all three. In the Ontario case, Tanel says phase two of certification will proceed under a "slightly revised" test because the legislation was amended. "This will be, I think, one of the more well-publicized actions that's decided under the new test that'll deal with issues of commonality and preferability." Tanel predicts the defendants will focus their efforts on ss. 5(1)(c) and (d) -- certification requires "the claims or defences of the class members raise common issues" and "a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure." "There's certainly an identifiable class of two or more persons that would be represented by the representative plaintiff. We now have a host of representative plaintiffs who fairly and adequately represent the interests of this class." "We're confident that that will be successful in that regard." [GN] SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA JV: Arciga Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JOSE ARCIGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA JV; SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV08481, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03718 to the proceeding. SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA operates a subway project that will increase regional mobility and improve connectivity throughout the metro system, offering travelers a few miles of extension from the current terminus. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jaime B. Laurent, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 Email: jlaurent@littler.com - and - Jonathan A. Heller, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2431 Telephone: (408) 998-4150 Facsimile: (408) 288-5686 Email: jheller@littler.com SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA: United African-Asian Sues Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- United African-Asian Abilities Club, on behalf of itself and its members; JAMES LEE, an individual, and/or others similarly situated v. SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA OWNER, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00593-W-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 27, 2024), is brought under the U.S. Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff Lee is a member of the Plaintiff Club. The individual Plaintiff Lee had specific dates wherein he intended to go the Defendant's Property to access Defendants' rental services. Plaintiff Lee has actual knowledge of the overt and obvious physical and communication barriers at Defendants' Property. Plaintiff Lee determined that the open and obvious physical barriers that exist at Defendants' Property directly related to his disabilities, and that it would be impossible or extremely difficult for him to physically access Defendants' on-site rental services. The Plaintiff Lee had knowledge of access barriers at the Property and determined that it would be futile gesture for him to go to the Property on the date that he had intended. The named Individual Plaintiff Lee was deterred by his actual knowledge of the physical and communication barriers that exist at Defendants' Property and also Defendants' website communication barriers. As used herein, website means any internet website where Defendants control the content. Plaintiff Lee also attempted to access Defendants' rental services on Defendants websites but experienced great difficulty due to Defendants' failure to provide accessible website features, says the complaint. The named Individual Plaintiff Lee has hip and knee conditions, uses a device for mobility, is unable to walk any distance, and also has a vision disability. SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA OWNER, LLC and is the operator of the apartment rental business known as The Grand At Vista Village Apartments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wakefield, Esq. LIGHTNING LAW, APC 10620 Treena Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone: 619.485.4300 Facsimile: 619.342.7755 Email: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com wakefieldlawassistant@gmail.com SPIRIT AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Wiretapping Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Western District of Pennsylvania recently granted Spirit Airlines, Inc. ("Spirit Airlines")'s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss a class action brought by a putative class of plaintiffs who visited Spirit Airlines' website for lack of Article III standing. Smidga, et al., v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01578, 2024 WL 1485853 (W.D. Penn. Apr. 5, 2024). The plaintiffs have now appealed that order to the Third Circuit. Smidga, et al., v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01578 (W.D. Penn. filed Apr. 23, 2024). The plaintiffs alleged that Spirit Airlines deployed sessions replay software on its website to track, record, and store the website activity of its visitors, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, URL website visits, and other electronic communications. 2024 WL 1485853, at *1. They brought claims against Spirit Airlines under the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act ("MESA"), Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"), California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), and other corresponding invasion of privacy and state common law claims. Id. Spirit Airlines filed a Rule 12(b)(1) facial and factual attack on the plaintiffs' Article III standing, arguing that (1) they failed to allege any concrete harm from Spirit Airlines' use of the software; and (2) no concrete harm actually occurred because the website did not collect personal identifying information from website visitors and any data collected was anonymized, per a sworn declaration from a Spirit Airlines executive. Id. at *2-3. To establish standing, the plaintiffs were required to allege they "(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). Even if a plaintiff alleges statutory violations, Article III standing still requires sufficient allegations of a "concrete" harm. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 426 (2021). The district court summarized cases finding that the collection of basic contact information, such as email addresses, phone numbers, and social media usernames, is not a sufficiently concrete harm. Smidga, 2024 WL 1485853, at *4. As a result, the district court found that two of the three plaintiffs, who had alleged only the collection of their basic contact information, suffered no concrete injury sufficient to support Article III standing. Id. at *5. By comparison, the third plaintiff did allege that she input her credit card data into Spirit Airlines' website. Id. at *5. While the district court found that these allegations survived a facial attack on jurisdictional standing, the court nonetheless held that the third plaintiff could not survive a factual attack on Article III standing because she did not dispute Spirit Airlines' sworn assertions that it did not collect or record personalized data from website visitors. Id. The district court therefore found that all three named plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to support Article III standing, granted Spirit Airlines' Rule 12(b)(1) motion, denied its corresponding Rule 12(b)(6) motion as moot, and granted the plaintiffs limited leave to amend their complaint. Id. at *6-7. After the plaintiffs declined to file an amended complaint, the district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Smidga, et al., v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01578 (W.D. Penn. Apr. 22, 2024). The following day, the plaintiffs noticed their appeal to the Third Circuit. Takeaways: We will continue to monitor the appeal in Smidga and other class actions where a party mounts an attack to Article III standing. The decision in Smidga demonstrates that a wiretapping and invasion of privacy class must take seriously the requirement that they allege a sufficiently concrete harm to avoid a facial or factual attack to Article III standing. [GN] THOMAS J. VILSACK: Provost Files Suit in D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against THOMAS J. VILSACK, et al. The case is styled as Wenceslaus Provost, Jr., Angela Provost, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as the SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE and his successors in interest; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; Case No. 1:24-cv-00920-TJK (D.D.C., March 29, 2024). The nature of suit is state as Other Civil Rights for Personal Injury. Thomas James Vilsack is an American politician serving as the 32nd United States secretary of agriculture in the Biden administration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Macdonald, Esq. Ariel C. Green Anaba, Esq. Luis Li, Esq. Mark Yohalem, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 953 East Third Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (323) 210-2900 Email: matthew.macdonald@wsgr.com aanaba@wsgr.com luis.li@wsgr.com myohalem@wsgr.com - and - Constandinos Himonas, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 15 W. South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 971-4544 Email: dhimonas@wsgr.com - and - Luke Anthony Liss, Esq. WSGR 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 493-9300 Email: lliss@wsgr.com - and - Robin S Crauthers, Esq. WILSON SONSINI 1700 K Street, Suite 4/31 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (314) 359-6563 Email: rcrauthers@wsgr.com TORRID LLC: Faces Class Action Over False Sale Prices Online ------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Torrid faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the fashion retailer has misled shoppers by posting false sale prices on its website, leading consumers to mistakenly believe they're getting a deal. The 42-page lawsuit claims that the Torrid, Torrid Curve, CURV and Lovesick clothing at issue has been advertised with "false, misleading, and inflated comparison reference prices," which serve to deceive consumers into believing that the stated sale price on Torrid.com is a discounted bargain price. Per the case, Torrid's purportedly limited-time sitewide or nearly sitewide sales are misleading in that they never expire. "[W]hen one sale expires, another similar sale is promptly instituted, or the sale never ends," the lawsuit reads. "This cycle continues over and over." At the end of the day, Torrid's online "sales" practices deceive consumers into spending money they otherwise would not have spent, the case argues. The truth, the suit claims, is that the purported strike-through discounts on Torrid's site are not representative of any former "regular price" at which a product was offered for any period of time because a given item "has not been listed for sale or sold on the website, in the recent past and for a substantial time," at that purported regular price. "Anyone visiting the website who buys an item on ‘sale' from a stricken former or regular price is being misled," the class action lawsuit alleges. "So too is anyone who buys an item on sale using an automatically or manually applied coupon code." According to the complaint, all, or nearly all, of the reference prices on Torrid.com are false and misleading, as they are simply "inflated prices posted to lure consumers into purchasing items." Beyond that, the filing says, Torrid's products sold online have both a lower market value than what consumers are led to believe and a lower value than the posted discounted "sale" price. Ultimately, Torrid's use of false reference prices online artificially drives up demand for its products, "and by extension drives up the price of the products," the case contends. The filing says that Torrid's apparent false reference pricing practice is not a new or isolated tactic but has continued regularly since at least 2020 and probably earlier. The Torrid class action lawsuit looks to cover all persons nationwide who bought one or more items from Torrid.com during the applicable statute of limitations period at a discount from a higher reference price. [GN] TOWNEBANK: Pines Horse Files Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TowneBank. The case is styled as The Pines Horse Farm & Sanctuary, LLC, Pearl and Bros Enterprises LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TowneBank, Case No. 2:24-cv-00181-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va., March 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. TowneBank -- https://www.townebank.com/ -- is a company built on relationships, offering a full range of banking and other financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Devon James Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD P.C. 120 Day Ave. SW First Floor Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (540) 283-9343 Fax: (540) 328-9290 Email: dmunro@trialsva.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Goldstein FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is captioned as ISAAC GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01729-PK (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. is a debt collection firm doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Ryder Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The case is captioned as MORGAN RYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUEACCORD CORP., Case No. 0:24-cv-60399-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2024). The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TrueAccord Corp. is a debt collection agency based in Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 (954) 628-5793 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com UBER EATS: Faces Class Suit in Las Vegas Over Imposter Restaurants ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Haas, writing for 8 News Now reports that a class action lawsuit filed against Uber Eats, delivery drivers and "imposter" restaurants includes racketeering allegations that dishonest operations have been going on for years. Four restaurant companies -- Esther's Kitchen, Babystacks Cafe, Manizza's Pizza and Gaetano's Ristorante -- are suing to recover damages lost to companies that made and sold food using their business names, all with the ongoing cooperation of Uber Eats and their delivery drivers, according to the lawsuit. Uber Eats pocketed 30% on every transaction and failed to investigate whether the imposter restaurants were who the said they were, the lawsuit alleges. This week, 8 News Now reported how the owner of Manizza's Pizza caught another business in the act impersonating her brand to fill an order. Uber Eats said they have paused all new applications for virtual kitchens in the Las Vegas valley and is now requiring new businesses to provide business licenses and proof of a physical address. The lawsuit estimates that at least 1,000 restaurants in the valley have been victimized, and seeks damages in excess of $15,0000 for each of those companies. Allegations of additional damages are also detailed in the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in Clark County District Court. Plaintiffs represented by Bighorn Law, a North Las Vegas law firm, argue that Uber Eats allows virtual kitchens to impersonate restaurants -- deliberately. "The Uber Defendants set the app up in this manner intentionally to harm small restraint businesses, including Plaintiffs, in an effort to take up more of the local restaurant market share as these local restaurants were pushed out due to the impact of this fraud and conversion," the lawsuit alleges. The setup "resulted in parties creating false identities that co-opted known restaurants brands and identities . . . and allowed unknown individuals to siphon business for themselves using the goodwill created by the actual business owners," according to the lawsuit. The drivers are complicit because they knew the food was not coming from the actual restaurant listed in the app, the lawsuit argues. The lawsuit names Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Uber Eats territory lead Berchman Melancon, two Uber Eats drivers identified only as Nick and Karina, and additional people and companies yet to be identified. Allegations include fraud, conversion, defamation and negligence, arguing that the actions qualify as racketeering under Nevada's RICO statutes. Racketeering laws were widely used to combat organized crime activities. [GN] VIRGINIA FARM: Haynes Files Personal Property Suit in E.D. Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. The case is captioned as CAROL HAYNES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00175-HEH (E.D. Va., March 8, 2024). The Plaintiff brings personal property claims against the Defendant. Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance firm based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] WALMART INC: Argenzio Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Product ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE ARGENZIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03302 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendant market and sell mislabeled its sunscreen Equate brand. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the description of the Product as "Reef Friendly" is "false or misleading," because its active and inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and octocrylene, are harmful to coral reefs, causing it to be "misbranded." Nowhere on the labeling does the Product tell purchasers that its active and inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and octocrylene, are harmful to reefs and not "reef friendly." As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, says the suit. WALMART INC. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler, games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party supplies, and automotive tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com WELLS FARGO: Beloff Files Personal Property Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank NA. The case is captioned as SAMUEL BELOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, Case No. 3:24-cv-01522-MMC (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2024). The Plaintiff brings personal property claims against the Defendant. Wells Fargo Bank NA is a financial services company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alisa Rose Adams, Esq. DANN LAW 26100 Towne Center Drive Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Telephone: (216) 926-0065 Email: aadams@dannlaw.com - and - Mark Louis Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave., Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com WELLS FARGO: Oberly Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company, et al. The case is styled as Carey Runzel Oberly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01883-TLT (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paula R. Brown, Esq. Timothy G. Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: pbrown@bholaw.com tblood@bholaw.com WHOLE FOODS: Yount Sues Over Omitted Wage Scale in Job Postings --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE YOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as WHOLE FOODS MARKET; WFM-WO, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as WHOLE FOODS MARKET; WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as WHOLE FOODS MARKET; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-05738-2 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., March 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered in its job postings in violation of the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110. Ms. Yount resides in King County, Washington and applied to work for the Defendants at their store located in Washington. Whole Foods Market Pacific Northwest, Inc., doing business as Whole Foods Market, is a food market store operator and owner in Washington. WFM-WO, Inc., doing business as Whole Foods Market, is a food market store operator and owner in Washington. Whole Foods Market Services, Inc., doing business as Whole Foods Market, is a food market store operator and owner in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***