/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240517.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 17, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 100
Headlines
51ST ST: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Bid to Oct. 6
ACCOLADE INC: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement Deal with Robbins
AETNA LIFE: Faces Rynkowska Suit Over ERISA Breaches
AGRI STATS: Court Certifies Class in Duryea Suit
ALEXANDRIA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Stay Copper Class Suit Nixed
APPLE INC: Faces Bove Class Suit Over Smartphone Monopoly
ARCHDIOCESE OF EDMONTON: Defamation Class Action Suit Can Proceed
ASR GROUP: Union LLC Sues Over Unlawful Price-Fixing Agreement
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Admits Vaccine Causes Rare Blood Clots
AT&T CORP: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
BANK OF AMERICA: Plans to Settle Hidden Fees Class Action Suit
BELLA JULES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
BIG BROTHERS: Court Stays Goebel Suit Pending Mediation
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Faces Willis Wage and Hour Lawsuit in Ill.
CALGARY STAMPEDE: Sex Abuse Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE: Titus-Lay Sues Over Private Data Breach
CANADA: Court Certifies Indigenous Child-Welfare Class Action Suit
CANADA: Proposes to Settle Racism Class Action in Military Service
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Unlawful Fees Class Action for $16 Mil.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Seeks Partial Summary Judgment
CHEDDAR CAPITAL: Starling Allowed to Conduct Class Certification
CHW GROUP: Shegian Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Voice Calls
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: Court Certifies Suit Over Landlord's Fees
CLUB EARLYBIRD: Faces Furdock Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces C.S. Suit Over Breach of Contract
CONTINENTAL AG: Faces Suit Over Replacement Tires' Fixed Prices
CREDIT BUREAU: Court Extends Case Progression Deadlines
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Bell
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over RICO Act Violations
CVS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Willingham Suit Alleges
DATABRICKS INC: Faces Makkai Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement
DERMACARE LLC: MacPhee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
DIAMOND DOLLS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Embry Due Dec. 10
DROPBOX INC: Walker Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Information
DYE & DURHAM: Plaintiffs' Counsel in Anticompetitive Suit Retained
ELEV8 CENTER: Thompson Seeks Conditional Collective Status
ELI LILLY & CO: Actos Third Party Payor Class Suit Ongoing
ELI LILLY & CO: Mosaic Health Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
FASHIONPILE GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Martinez Says
FLORIDA: Court Certifies Medicaid Class Action Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 29, 2025
GEICO GENERAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Marcelletti Class Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Conry Class Suit Over Antitrust Violations
GLOBAL CORD: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 24
GLOBE LIFE: Class Action Implicates Sexual Harassment and Drug Use
GOLDMAN SACHS: Agrees to Settle 2014 Trading Class Action Lawsuit
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McCurdy Says
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: McLaughlin Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
HCF MANAGEMENT: Kordie Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT
HEARTLAND FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger With UMB Financial
HILL VALLEY: Faces Winrow Suit Over Miscalculated Overtime Pay
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over AI Price Fixing
HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA: Lutz Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
INOVA HEALTH: Discloses Patients' Info to FB, Google, Lugo Says
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Court Junks ERISA-Related Class Suit
IVUEIT LLC: Wilburg Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
JOHN BROWN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Claims
JOSEPH'S CUSTOM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
JOYY INC: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Hershewe Suit
JP MORGAN: Valentine Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Information
KCOSERA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Claims
KRAFT HEINZ: Lunchables Products Contain Lead, Palmeri Suit Says
KROGER COMPANY: Loses Bid to Toss Barnett Amended Complaint
LAWRENCE GOETTISHEIM: Fails to Pay Assistant's OT Wages Under FLSA
LONG ISLAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Says
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
MALIBU BOATS: Yoon Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
MICHIGAN: Settlement in Unemployment Benefits' Suit Gets Initial OK
MICHIGAN: Settles Class Suit Over Unemployment Benefits for $55MM
MIRACLE MOO: Mosseri Sues Over Colostrum Supplements' False Ads
MPE PARTNERS: Seeks to Vacate Class Certification Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORP: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Practices
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ponders Settlement of Massive NIL Class Action
NATURELO PREMIUM: Settles False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
NEW SOUTH WALES: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $229.8MM
NEW YORK, NY: Teagle Plaintiffs Must File Supplemental Briefing
NISSAN CANADA: Settles Data Incident Class Action Lawsuit
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Plaintiffs Seek Prelim Approval of Settlement
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: President Faces Resignation Calls
OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Faces Walter Data Breach Class Suit
ON THE MARK: Perez Seeks to Recover Utility Locators' Unpaid Wages
OREGON: Court Dismisses Former Governor From COVID Class Suit
OREGON: Subpoenas Senator’s Emails Before Testifying in Class Suit
OVEN ARTISANS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Zeida Suit Claims
PAYCOR INC: Loses Bid for Continued Stay of Johns Suit
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PPH Securities Suit Pending
PAYPAL INC: Furdock Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
PIRCH INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over WARN Act Violation
PLAINS ALL: Oil Spill Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod
PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Strano Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid to Exclude Testimonies of Witnesses Tossed
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Suit Assesses Payroll Rounding Policies
QUIZLET INC: Furdock Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
RADIOREFERENCE.COM LLC: Furdock Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
REALPAGE INC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Hollins Suit
REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
RELX PLC: Discloses Personal Info to Customers, Trama Says
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
RETAIL FOOD: Settles Michel's Patisserie Franchisees Class Action
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Exchange Act-Related Suit
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Insurance Contract Breach Class Suit
SEAWORLD PARKS: Ward Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SIKA AG: Vera Antitrust Lawsuit Transferred to S.D. New York
SOUTHERN METHODIST: Wins Appeal on COVID Refund Class Action
SPARKY'S CONSULTING: Miracle Seeks Field Supervisors' Unpaid OT
SUNPRO SOLAR: Tutson Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SURFSHARK INC: Faces Pachoud Suit Over Auto-Renewal Payment Plan
TARGET CORP: Storace Sues Over Misleading Sunscreen Product Labels
TJX COMPANIES: Campos Files Suit Over Pixel Trackers in Emails
UNITED SUGAR: Triple Elm Sues Over Alleged Price-Fixing Conspiracy
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Diagnostic & Interventional Alleges Data Breach
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
VICTORIA: Judge Dismisses Public Housing Towers Class Action
VIRGINIA POOL: Ward Sues Over Labor Law Violations
VNET GROUP: Faces Semerak Securities Suit in New York Court
WORLEY FIELD: Cochran Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
[*] U.S. Class Action Settlements Flooded With Fraudulent Claims
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,613 Claims as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends 42 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 285 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has $761MM Asbestos Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Reports 14,231 Unresolved Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $200MM Net Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends 617 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $124.7MM Litigation Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 1,367 Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Has 275 Pending Cases as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 783 New Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 594 Pending Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Reports $17.7MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 19,510 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has $5.5MM Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,460 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 915 Active Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports 5,265 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 600 PI Lawsuits as of March 31
*********
51ST ST: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Bid to Oct. 6
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSA SOLIS, an individual,
on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. 51ST ST. & 8TH AVE. CORP., a New York corporation;
LOEWS CORONADO HOTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; LOEW'S
HOTELS, INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01161-JES-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting joint motion to continue
Plaintiff's deadline to file
motion for class certification.
1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file the Motion for Class
Certification shall be continued from Aug. 6, 2024, to Oct.
6,
2024.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sy68UI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
Sydney Castillo-Johnson, Esq.
Perssia Razma, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
scastillo@jcl-lawfirm.com
prazma@jcl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 655-1300
Facsimile: (415) 707-2010
E-mail: Ellen.bronchetti@gtlaw.com
ACCOLADE INC: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement Deal with Robbins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Accolade, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
February 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2024 that in September 2023 the company's
wholly owned subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc. paid the settlement in
full pursuant to the terms of the court-approved settlement of a
purported class action complaint captioned "Robbins v. PlushCare,
Inc. et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 8, 2021 against the
company's wholly owned subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc.
The parties have tentatively agreed on a settlement and the company
has recorded a contingent liability. The company paid the
settlement in full in September 2023 pursuant to the terms of the
court-approved settlement.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that certain of PlushCare's
subscription payment practices violate California and other state
automatic renewal laws and the Federal Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, among other claims, arising from allegations that PlushCare
failed to provide adequate disclosures to members.
The lawsuit seeks restitution of subscription fees, statutory
damages for each violation, subject to trebling, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Under the terms of the
agreement to purchase PlushCare, the selling shareholders will
indemnify Accolade for losses related to this matter, subject to a
cap.
Part of the settlement liability was subject to indemnification and
reimbursement from cash and stock escrows set up as part of the
company's acquisition of PlushCare which was settled in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2024.
Accolade, Inc. provides care delivery services based in Washington
State.
AETNA LIFE: Faces Rynkowska Suit Over ERISA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
AMELIA RYNKOWSKA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03658 (C.D. Cal., May 2,
2024) seeks to address Aetna's repeated violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Allegedly, Aetna has a systemic practice of improperly denying
services for Advanced Reproductive Technology on the ground the
plan covers only In Vitro Fertilization fertility preservation. As
a result of Aetna's wrongful conduct, insurance policy benefits
have been denied to Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit.
Headquartered in Hartford, CT, Aetna Life Insurance Company offers
health insurance, as well as dental, vision and other plans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
AGRI STATS: Court Certifies Class in Duryea Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duryea et al v. Agri
Stats, Inc. et al. (RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John Tunheim
entered an order that:
1. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is
granted;
2. Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class is granted;
3. Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class
is granted;
4. Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Russell
Mangum is denied;
5. Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Michael
Williams is denied; and
6. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Hal
Singer
is denied.
Each class submitted expert testimony in support of its motion for
class certification. The Defendants oppose the Class Plaintiffs'
motions and urge the Court to exclude the experts' testimony.
Because the Court finds the less stringent Daubert standard
employed at the class certification stage satisfied, it will deny
the Defendants' motions to exclude the experts' testimony. After
conducting a rigorous analysis, the Court also finds that the Class
Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for class certification. The Court will therefore
certify the DPPs' damages class, the Consumer IPPs' damages class,
and the Commercial IIPPs' damages and injunctive relief classes.
A. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
The proposed DPP class broadly represents individuals and
businesses that are the first in the chain of distribution,
purchasing directly from Defendants. DPPs bring claims under
federal law and ask the Court to certify the following damages
class pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3):
All persons and entities who directly purchased one or more
of the following types of pork, or products derived from the
following types of pork, from Defendants, or their respective
subsidiaries or affiliates, for use or delivery in the United
States from June 29, 2014 through June 30, 2018: fresh or
frozen loins, shoulders, ribs, bellies, bacon, or hams. For this
lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic
or as no antibiotics ever (NAE); any product that is fully
cooked or breaded; any product other than bacon that is
marinated, flavored, cured, or smoked; and ready-to-eat bacon.
Commercial IIPPs bring claims under state laws and ask the Court
to certify the following injunctive relief class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) and damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):
Proposed Injunctive Class: All entities that indirectly purchased
uncooked pork bacon, or one or more of the following types of raw
pork, whether fresh or frozen: loins, shoulder, ribs, hams, or pork
chops from defendants or co-conspirators for their own use in
commercial food preparation in the United States from June 28, 2014
to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any product that
is marketed as organic and/or no antibiotics ever and any product
other than bacon that is marinated, seasoned, flavored, or breaded,
but
it includes uncooked and cooked ham water added products.7
Proposed Damages Class: All entities that indirectly purchased
uncooked pork bacon, or one or more of the following types of raw
pork, whether fresh or frozen: loins, shoulder, ribs, hams, or pork
chops from defendants or co-conspirators for their own use in
commercial food preparation in the Repealer Jurisdictions from June
28, 2014 to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any
product that is marketed as organic and/or no antibiotics ever and
any
product other than bacon that is marinated, seasoned, flavored, or
breaded, but it includes uncooked and cooked ham water added
products.
C. Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
Lastly, the Consumer IPPs represent end-users of pork products.
They are largely individual consumers who purchased pork at
allegedly elevated prices indirectly from Defendants. Consumer IPPs
bring per se and rule of reason theories against Defendants under
various state laws and ask the Court to certify the following
damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):
All persons and entities who indirectly purchased raw pork
bacon, or one or more of the following types of raw pork, whether
fresh or frozen: bellies, loins, shoulder, ribs or pork
chops from defendants or co-conspirators for personal
consumption in the Repealer Jurisdictions10 from June 28,
2014 to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any
product that is marketed as organic, no-antibiotics ever (NAE)
and any product other than bacon that is marinated,
seasoned, flavored, or breaded.
The Plaintiffs allege that, from at least 2009–2018, the
Defendants conspired to "fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price of pork."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0VyPIB at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALEXANDRIA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Stay Copper Class Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINA COOPER, ET AL., V.
ALEXANDRIA HEALTHCARE, L.L.C., ET AL., Case No.
1:23-cv-01813-JE-JPM (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Perez-Montes
entered an order denying Defendants' motion to stay.
As cautioned in the related cases, the Plaintiffs are held to their
representation that discovery at this stage will be limited to
"documents and information narrowly tailored to class certification
issues." The parties are directed to proceed in good faith and make
every reasonable effort to avoid wasteful litigation about
discovery scope issues.
Although Plaintiffs do not articulate any particular prejudice in
staying discovery, the Court recognizes any delay gives rise to
fading memories, lost or misplaced documents, changes in relevant
personnel, new computer systems, and similar concerns about access
to relevant evidence. However, Defendants are not unreasonable in
requesting a stay to avoid the expense of discovery until the
Court’s jurisdiction is resolved.
The Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending resolution of their
Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Defendants,
asserting state law claims arising from alleged understaffing and
other shortcomings in the operation of a skilled nursing facility.
Alexandria is a group of practices offering state-of-the-art urgent
and primary care medical facility.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZogYuD at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Faces Bove Class Suit Over Smartphone Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------
DENISE BOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-05727 (D.N.J., Apr. 29,
2024) alleges that Apple used anticompetitive techniques to lock
consumers and developers into its ecosystem, thwart nascent
competitive threats, and build a "moat" around the iPhone that
would ensure monopoly profits for years to come.
The U.S. Department of Justice and 16 States and territories have
rightly brought suit to vindicate their sovereign law-enforcement
interests and stop Apple's wrongful conduct. The Plaintiff seeks in
this suit to vindicate the interests of the millions of consumers
who have overpaid for iPhones they purchased from Apple, missed out
on the innovation and improved user experiences that competition
would have made possible, and face ongoing harm unless this Court
enjoins Apple's monopolistic conduct in the performance smartphone
and smartphone markets.
Apple's smartphone business model, at its core, is one that invites
as many participants, including iPhone users and third-party
developers, to join its platform as possible while using
contractual terms to force these participants to pay substantial
fees. At the same time, Apple restricts its platform participants'
ability to negotiate or compete down its fees through alternative
app stores, in-app payment processors, and more. In order to
protect that model, Apple reduces competition in the markets for
performance smartphones and smartphones generally. It does this by
delaying, degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would
increase competition in the smartphone markets by decreasing
barriers to switching to another smartphone, among other things.
The suppressed technologies would provide a high-quality user
experience on any smartphone, which would, in turn, require
smartphones to compete on their merits, says the suit.
This complaint focuses on five examples of Apple using these
mechanisms to suppress technologies that would have increased
competition among smartphones. Suppressing these technologies does
not reflect competition on the merits. Rather, to protect its
smartphone monopoly -- and the extraordinary profits that monopoly
generates -- Apple repeatedly chooses to make its products worse
for consumers to prevent competition from emerging. These examples
below individually and collectively have contributed to Apple's
ability to secure, grow, and maintain its smartphone monopoly by
increasing switching costs for users, which leads to higher prices
and less innovation for users and developers. Apple has used its
anticompetitive strategies to suppress the following technologies,
among others:
Super apps provide a user with broad functionality in a single
app.
Cloud streaming game apps provide users with a way to play
computing intensive games in the cloud.
Messaging apps are apps that allow users to communicate with
friends, family, and other contacts.
Smartwatches are an expensive accessory that typically must be
paired to a smartphone.
Digital wallets are an increasingly important way that
smartphones are used and are a product in which users develop a
great deal of comfort and trust as they typically contain users'
most sensitive information.
The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C sections 15 & 26, for violations of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, and pursuant to N.J.S.A.
56:9-10(b) and 56:9-12(a).
Plaintiff Bove purchased several iPhones directly from Apple, most
recently an iPhone 15 Plus, iPhone 15 Pro, and iPhone 15 Pro Max in
December 2023 through the Apple website.
Apple is a global technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
ARCHDIOCESE OF EDMONTON: Defamation Class Action Suit Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Appel, writing for Alberta Native News, reports that a
Calgary judge has struck down a motion seeking to block a
class-action defamation lawsuit launched by residential school
survivors against the Catholic Church and a priest who denied the
existence of unmarked graves on the grounds of former residential
schools.
Sphenia Jones, a 79-year-old elder of the Haida Nation in British
Columbia who attended the Edmonton Indian Residential School in the
1950s, is the lawsuit's representative plaintiff, filing on behalf
of "residential-school survivors who have spoken out about deaths."
Jones accuses Rev. Marcin Mironiuk of making defamatory remarks
about residential school survivors and bringing their reputations
into disrepute in 2021. Also named in the suit are the Catholic
Archdiocese of Edmonton, which denounced Mironiuk's remarks and
placed him on indefinite administrative leave, and the Oblate
Fathers of Assumption Province.
According to reporting from CTV News, Mironiuk is listed as a
priest on the website of a Catholic Church in Brampton, Ont. -- a
city just northwest of Toronto. CTV didn't identify the specific
church.
Justice James Farrington, in his April 22 ruling allowing the suit
to proceed, said he is satisfied the claim has a "reasonable chance
of success and completes the basics." He ordered the defendants to
pay the Jones's legal costs for fighting their unsuccessful
challenge.
The statement of claim, which was filed in July 2023, accuses
Mironiuk of calling reports of unmarked graves at the sites of
former residential schools "manipulation" and "lies." The priest,
according to the statement, claimed that children who died at
residential schools died from natural causes.
These remarks were written in Polish, which Mironiuk's lawyers
claim were misinterpreted. The accuracy of their translation hasn't
been proven in court.
Paul Morrison, the defendants' lawyer, unsuccessfully argued in
court that there's "no basis" for anyone to believe Mironiuk was
referring specifically to the defendants.
He argued that "residential-school survivors who have spoken out
about deaths" is too vague a description to be an acceptable class
for the purposes of a class-action suit.
Justice Farrington was receptive to Morrison's concern that "spoken
out" could be open to excessively broad interpretation, but argued
that wasn't sufficient to throw the suit out at this point in the
process.
Max Faille, Jones's lawyer, argued it would be "cruelly naive,"
given Mironiuk's position of authority, to suggest that
parishioners and other members of the church hierarchy wouldn't be
"potentially inclined to believe" the priest's comments.
Faille added that Jones proceeded with litigation on behalf of
everyone who has "had the courage to speak about their experiences
and their knowledge of what happened at residential schools,
including the horrific number of deaths of children."
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Faille noted that the law
"does recognize that a group can be defamed."
Prior to the hearing, Jones told reporters about her experience of
abuse at residential school, describing having her nails ripped
out, being beaten with a stick and witnessing other children's
deaths.
"She saw where they were buried, along the fence – an area now
overgrown with trees," the statement of claim reads.
Jones's claim details how she was taken from her family in Haida
Gwaii at age 11 and transported by train to Edmonton, with stops on
the way to pick up children in other Indigenous communities, some
of whom died on the way.
Jones told reporters that filing this lawsuit is her "way of saving
our children."
Father Marcin Serwin, speaking on behalf of Mironiuk and the
Oblates, said in a statement to the Globe that the defendant spoke
specifically about unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian
Residential School and not residential schools in general. [GN]
ASR GROUP: Union LLC Sues Over Unlawful Price-Fixing Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union LLC d/b/a Union Hospitality Group, an Arizona limited
liability company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASR Group International, Inc.;
American Sugar Refining, Inc.; Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar
Producers & Refiners Cooperating f/k/a/ United Sugars Corporation;
Michigan Sugar Company; Cargill, Inc.; Commodity Information, Inc.,
and Richard Wistisen and Jane Doe Wistisen, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00233-BGM (D. Ariz., May 3, 2024) arises from Defendants'
unlawful agreement to fix prices for granulated sugar in the United
States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Allegedly, the Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively
sensitive, non-public information about granulated sugar prices,
capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand to implement their
price-fixing conspiracy. As a result, the commercial indirect
purchasers of granulated sugar, including commercial kitchens found
in bakeries, coffee shops, grocery stores, and restaurants, paid
supra-competitive prices for granulated sugar sold by Defendants in
the United States and its territories beginning no later than
January 1, 2019, and running through the present, says the suit.
ASR Group International, Inc. is a privately held Florida
corporation and global producer and seller of Granulated Sugar
based in West Palm Beach, Florida. In North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Wilkins Hoffman, Esq.
HOFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
99 E. Virginia Ave., Ste. 220
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (623) 565-8851
E-mail: ahoffman@hoffmanlegalaz.com
- and -
Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Admits Vaccine Causes Rare Blood Clots
-------------------------------------------------------------------
https://che.northeastern.edu/ reports that AstraZeneca admitted in
court that its vaccines can cause rare blood clotting condition.
Should that give its recipients pause?
Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca admitted in court this week that
its COVID-19 vaccine can cause a rare but deadly blood-clotting
condition that has become the central focus of a class-action
lawsuit worth potentially $125 million.
A Northeastern University legal scholar says the admission isn't
especially damning, as the rare condition -- called thrombosis with
thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS -- was well-studied prior to the
ongoing litigation.
"The fact that this had already been listed as a potential side
effect reduces its legal impact," says Richard Daynard, university
distinguished professor of law and president of the Public Health
Advocacy Institute.
Daynard continues: "After all, the vaccine saved many more lives in
Britain than were affected by this side effect, so AstraZeneca's
admission -- of what had already been listed -- would not seem to
be a big deal."
There are 51 cases of TTS associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine
cited in the U.K.-based class action suit. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention notes that there are roughly four cases of
the condition reported per one million administered doses of the
Johnson & Johnson vaccine which, like the AstraZeneca, is an
"adenovirus" vaccine.
If you received the AstraZeneca vaccine, should you be concerned
about TTS?
Northeastern Global News spoke to Mansoor Amiji, Northeastern
distinguished professor in the departments of pharmaceutical
sciences and chemical engineering, to get some perspective on the
link between the shot and this rare side effect.
Amiji's comments have been edited for brevity and clarity. [GN]
AT&T CORP: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Megan Loe, writing for KAGS TV, reports that in late March 2024,
telecommunications company AT&T announced that a data breach had
compromised the personal information of about 73 million people.
AT&T said in the announcement that a dataset found on the dark web
contained information including some Social Security numbers for
about 7.6 million current account holders and about 65.4 million
former account holders. According to AT&T, the impacted data
appears to be from 2019 or earlier.
The company said it's unknown whether the data "originated from
AT&T or one of its vendors," adding that it had launched an
investigation supported by cybersecurity experts.
Multiple AT&T customers, including a VERIFY team member, have since
received emails or letters about their personal information being
compromised in the breach.
VERIFY reader Gary told the team in an email that he has seen ads
from law firms about class action lawsuits related to the AT&T data
breach, and asked if the ads are scams or legit.
THE QUESTION
Have class action lawsuits been filed against AT&T over a data
breach?
THE ANSWER
Yes, class action lawsuits have been filed against AT&T over a data
breach.
WHAT WE FOUND
AT&T is facing multiple class action lawsuits over the data breach
that was announced in late March.
VERIFY found nearly a dozen lawsuits that have been filed against
the telecommunications company as of May 1, 2024. At least one law
firm is looking for people who are interested in participating in
the case against AT&T.
All of the class action lawsuits filed raise similar allegations
about AT&T failing to properly secure its customers' personal
information. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits are demanding jury
trials and requesting various damages for affected customers.
Since the lawsuits were recently filed, it's unclear whether or not
they will ultimately lead to settlement payments.
One of the first lawsuits was filed in Texas on the same day that
AT&T announced the breach. It alleges that the data breach was a
"direct result" of AT&T's "failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols" needed to
protect customers' personal information "from a foreseeable and
preventable cyberattack."
At least eight other class action lawsuits were filed against AT&T
in Texas around the same time, court records published by the legal
news service Law360 show.
Two law firms also announced additional class action lawsuits filed
against AT&T over the data breach.
A lawsuit filed by two plaintiffs on April 3, 2024 "accuses AT&T of
negligence and breach of contract for failing to investigate the
massive data breach for nearly three years," Cohen Milstein law
firm said in a press release.
It alleges that AT&T learned of the breach in August 2021 when
hackers auctioned off 70 million customers' personal information in
an online forum. AT&T initially denied that the data breach
occurred and did not investigate further until the contents of the
database were leaked on the dark web nearly three years later, the
lawsuit alleges.
The law firm says people who are interested in participating in the
case should complete the contact form on its website.
Another lawsuit filed by Beasley Allen accuses AT&T of failing to
"adequately protect customer data" and leaving it "vulnerable to
cybercriminals," according to a press release published by the law
firm on April 23, 2024.
The lawsuit also "criticizes the telecom provider for not
disclosing vital details about the breach, such as the specific
timeline of the events and reasons behind the delay of over three
years in informing current and former customers about the
cyberattack," Beasley Allen says.
AT&T did not comment on the allegations within the lawsuits and
instead directed VERIFY to a website with information on what
customers can do if their personal information was compromised.
The company says on that website that it has emailed or mailed
letters to people with compromised personal information, and is
offering complementary identity theft and credit monitoring
services. Legitimate emails come from ATT@message.att-mail.com, the
company says. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Plans to Settle Hidden Fees Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Jordan, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that Bank of
America is planning to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the
financial giant of charging hidden fees for wire transfers,
according to court filings by lawyers involved in the North
Carolina federal court case.
Plaintiffs claimed they were unaware of a $15 fee to have money
sent to their accounts through the Charlotte-based bank.
Lawyers for the account holders and the bank filed a pending joint
notice for a settlement and stipulation with the U.S. District
Court of Western North Carolina on April 11. A judge told the
parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
by May 24.
The details of the proposed settlement were not detailed in public
court filings yet.
The complaint was originally filed in Mecklenburg County Superior
Court in March 2023 by California resident Aaron Aseltine before it
was transferred to federal court in April 2023 for jurisdiction
reasons.
About the case
Lawyers working for Aseltine and other plaintiffs said Bank of
America misled customers and hid charges for incoming wire
transfers for personal account holders by tacking on "junk" fees,
which were unavoidable.
Account holders like Aseltine were surprised to see hefty fees for
money wired into their accounts, the attorneys claim. They also
said the plaintiffs did not have a chance to review and avoid the
fee.
The complaint also cited that account documents said "fee varies"
for incoming or outgoing wire transfers and that it may change at
any time. But a customer contract document does not list the $15
for incoming wire transfer fees, according to the attorneys.
Lawyers also said Bank of America is an outlier in the industry for
the complaint. A disclosure document from Wells Fargo was used an
example of a bank letting customers know about the exact fees for
wire transfer.
The complaint said the fees are also problems because an account
holder does not take action or request a service for an inbound
wire. "That is why many financial institutions refuse to charge
such fees at all, at least for domestic transfers," the lawyers
said in the complaint. Some of those financial companies are Ally
Bank, Capital One, Discover, Fidelity and Village Bank.
Bank of America submitted an answer last year to the court and
denied unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice of misleading
customers. The bank’s attorneys said the bank did not breach
account agreements with consumers.
The bank declined to comment to The Charlotte Observer, but
referred to recent court filings regarding its position in the
case.
Bank of America has more than 19,000 employees in the Charlotte
region, part of 213,000 workers companywide. As of June, it had
$2.4 trillion in assets, and was the second-largest bank in the
United States. [GN]
BELLA JULES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bella Jules, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03242 (S.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 29, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website
"Bellajulesboutique.com" to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Bella Jules provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
dress on Bellajulesboutique.com. She navigated the site, trying to
explore its wide range of designer dresses. However, due to the
website's accessibility issues, she could not efficiently select
one that met her needs. Faced with the accessibility obstacles, she
attempted to find contact information for assistance but discovered
that it was inaccessible as well, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Bella Jules' policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Bella Jules specializes in curated selections of designer
clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
BIG BROTHERS: Court Stays Goebel Suit Pending Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goebel v. Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America Corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-00463 (M.D. Fla.,
Filed Feb. 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle
entered an order granting in part the Parties' joint motion to stay
pending mediation:
-- All deadlines except Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the
pending motion to dismiss are stayed until Aug. 9, 2024,
pending
mediation.
-- There are substantial standing concerns under Article III.
Should
the Parties eventually seek approval of a class-wide
settlement,
they should be prepared to address those standing issues in
full,
including a discussion of the appropriate standard of proof for
demonstrating standing in the posture of a certification-for-
settlement motion.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.[CC]
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services
agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
failed to protect patient information from a 2021 data breach.
The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information the
BioPlus data breach, which occurred Oct. 25, 2021-Nov. 11, 2021,
compromised.
Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim BioPlus
Specialty Pharmacy Services failed to implement reasonable
cybersecurity measures that could have prevented a 2021 data
breach. The company's lax protections allegedly allowed hackers to
gain access to sensitive patient data, including Social Security
numbers.
BioPlus is a specialty pharmacy that helps patients manage chronic
medical conditions and navigate barriers to treatment.
BioPlus hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive
monetary benefits based on whether they experienced data
breach-related expenses or their Social Security numbers were
compromised.
Class members whose Social Security numbers were compromised can
receive a $50 flat rate cash payment and up to $7,500 in
reimbursement for data breach-related expenses, including three
hours of lost time compensated at a rate of $25 per hour.
Class members whose Social Security numbers were not compromised in
the data breach will not receive a flat rate cash payment but can
receive up to $750 in reimbursement for data breach-related
expenses, including two hours of lost time compensated at a rate of
$25 per hour.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 18, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
22, 2024.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by July 18, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information the BioPlus data breach,
which occurred between Oct. 25, 2021, and Nov. 11, 2021,
compromised
Potential Award
$7,550
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, invoices, account statements, credit reports, travel
documents, police reports and other documentation of data
breach-related expenses
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/18/2024
Case Name
Gilbert, et al. v. BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services LLC, Case
No. 6:21-cv-02158-RBD-DCI, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida
Final Hearing
08/22/2024
Settlement Website
BioPlusDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Gilbert Data Incident Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
(833) 933-9020
Class Counsel
John A Yanchunis
MORGAN & MORGAN
216 Summit Blvd, Suite 300
Birmingham, AL 35243
(205) 517-6900
Terence R Coates
Dylan J Gould
MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
119 E Court St #530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (855) 843-5442
Nicholas A Migliaccio
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE #302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520 [GN]
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Faces Willis Wage and Hour Lawsuit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARNESE WILLIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC and
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-01208 (S.D. Ill., May 2, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
The Defendants have employed Plaintiff Willis as a bartender from
approximately September 2020 through approximately March 2023 at
their Drake's restaurant in O'Fallon, IL. Allegedly, Defendants
paid Plaintiff and other employees, including servers and
bartenders, a tipped hourly wage less than the FLSA's and IMWL's
minimum wage, says the suit.
Headquartered in Lexington, KY, Bluegrass Hospitality Group, LLC
manages restaurants and provides dining services for families,
corporate dinners, special events and occasions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
CALGARY STAMPEDE: Sex Abuse Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Grant, writing for CBC News, reports that about 300 people
have joined a $9.5-million class action lawsuit against the Calgary
Stampede, which admitted negligence after a serial sexual abuser
worked for decades with teenage performers from the Young
Canadians, a judge heard April 30, 2024.
Lawyers for the claimants and Stampede were in court to update
Court of King's Bench Justice Paul Jeffrey on how the funds will be
distributed and to work out details of a plan to notify all
potential class members of an upcoming settlement approval
hearing.
About two dozen of the 300 claimants fall into the third, most
serious category of harm suffered due to Philip Heerema's abusive
actions, the judge heard as part of the proposed settlement
hearing.
Carsten Jensen, one of the lawyers from JSS Barristers, called the
case a "long running and hard fought class action."
"This isn't the end of the case but we hope it's the beginning of
the end," said Jensen.
"We also hope it's the beginning of a new future for the class
members, many of whom have been severely impacted by [Philip]
Heerema and the failure of the Stampede to protect them."
Sexual abuse of teens
Heerema worked for the Young Canadians for 36 years, first as a
performer and later as an employee. The Young Canadians, consisting
mostly of teen performers, are featured nightly in the Calgary
Stampede's Grandstand Show every July.
In 2018, Heerema admitted to sexually abusing six teenage boys
through the course of his employment at the Young Canadians School
of Performing Arts, admitting to using his position to lure and
groom the boys into sexual relationships between 1992 and 2014.
Heerema pleaded guilty to eight charges, including sexual assault,
sexual exploitation, child pornography and luring. He was handed a
10-year sentence but has since been released on day parole.
On April 30, Justice Jeffrey heard there are three categories of
claimants who will receive compensation based on the level of harm
they experienced during their time with the Young Canadians.
Students who were members of the Young Canadians but were not
victims of Heerema will receive "modest payment."
2 dozen in most impacted group
Those who were not directly harmed by Heerema but witnessed
incidents fall into the second group.
The balance of the settlement funds will go to about two dozen
people who were directly affected by Heerema's actions.
Lawyers are now tasked with tracking down as many potential class
members as possible through various means such as social media,
press releases, websites, etc., advising of the right to
participate in the settlement approval hearing, including the right
to object to the settlement.
The Calgary Stampede must also post notice to its Instagram
account.
"We think word has got out to most of the people who may have been
impacted here," said Jensen.
Once the judge signs off on the settlement at the approval hearing
in June, claimants will go through an assessment process with
trauma-informed assessors to determine which category they fall
into.
Last year, the Stampede admitted to negligence and breach of duty
and agreed to pay all damages.
During a parole hearing in January, Heerema told the board there
were more victims who had not come forward. [GN]
CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE: Titus-Lay Sues Over Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA TITUS-LAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-at-00536 (E.D. Cal., April 29, 2024)
arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of
sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control
of California Northstate University.
According to the complaint, the data breach occurred between
February 12, 2023 and February 13, 2023, providing cybercriminals
unfettered access to its network system until CNSU discovered the
breach. However, CNSU waited more than ten months before finally
informing Class members of the breach, even though Plaintiff and
Class members had their most sensitive personal information
accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer
ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of
their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. In addition, CNSU's
Breach Notice also obfuscated the nature of the breach and the
threat it posted -- refusing to tell its former and current
employees and students how many people were impacted, how the
breach happened, or why CNSU delayed notifying victims that hackers
had gained access to highly sensitive personally identifiable
information, says the suit.
Based in Elk Grove, CA, CNSU is a private university specializing
in healthcare education. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
Cassandra Miller, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: andrewg@turkestrauss.com
cassandram@turkestrauss.com
CANADA: Court Certifies Indigenous Child-Welfare Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Gallant, writing for Nunatsiaq News, reports that Quebec's
superior court has decided a class action lawsuit alleging
discriminatory underfunding of Indigenous child welfare services in
the province will go forward.
The case's proponents say the Canadian and Quebec governments are
not abiding by their constitutional obligations to off-reserve
Indigenous children and families. They also allege Canada is not
ensuring adequate standards or funding for the provinces to take
care of their Indigenous population.
Sotos Class Actions filed the suit alongside two law firms, Kugler
Kandestin LLP and Coupal Chauvelot s.a. in Montreal. Sotos
announced Tuesday, April 30, in a news release that the case had
been certified.
The lawsuit began with two petitioners, both of them having gone
through the child welfare system in Nunavik.
The release said Indigenous youth and their families were "left to
an under-funded provincial welfare system that prioritized family
breakups over keeping families together through prevention."
"[They] were made to suffer discrimination and emotional harm
compounded by the legacy of the residential school system and the
Sixties Scoop."
The Sixties Scoop refers to a former federal program that allowed
child welfare services to take Indigenous children from their
families and communities, often to be adopted by white families.
The judgment that authorized this class action cites multiple
reports and studies made over decades into Quebec's child welfare
system. All documents "decried the lack of adequate funding and
training that could have prevented or lessened the mass removals."
A report, done by Quebec's Human Rights Commission, said the
fundamental rights of children and young people recognized in
sections of Quebec's charter of human rights and freedoms were
infringed.
"The whole reason why I decided to bring this case was so that I
could come out of the shadows that child welfare cast over my
childhood and my life to this day," said Tanya Jones, one of the
original plaintiffs, in the release.
"I am happy that this judgment allows our claim to move forward and
for our stories to be told."
In 2023, the federal government agreed to a $23.34-billion
settlement to compensate on-reserve First Nations who were harmed
by discrimination in Canada's on-reserve Child and Family Services
Program and essential public services.
The class action approved this week argues Inuit, Metis, and
off-reserve First Nation youth have been left out, "despite having
suffered the very same forms of discrimination as the on-reserve
First Nations youth and families covered by the [federal]
settlement." [GN]
CANADA: Proposes to Settle Racism Class Action in Military Service
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that the Government of Canada has agreed to a
proposed settlement of a class action for current and former
members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) who experienced racial
discrimination or racial harassment in connection with their
military service.
If approved, the settlement may provide payment to all current or
former CAF members who have been enrolled between April 17, 1985,
and today and who have experienced racial discrimination or
harassment in connection with their service.
The proposed settlement also provides class members the option to
participate in a restorative engagement process to communicate
their experiences to senior CAF leadership with the assistance of
qualified and trained restorative practitioners. In addition, the
proposed settlement includes other systemic relief measures to
improve the organizational culture and systems within the CAF, with
the objective of addressing and eliminating racial discrimination
and harassment in the organization.
A hearing to determine if the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members is
scheduled to take place before the Federal Court on July 16 and 17,
2024 in Halifax and by videoconference. The hearing is open for
anyone to attend in person or virtually.
Ahead of this hearing, current and former CAF members who have
experienced racial discrimination or harassment have the option to
register their support for, or objection to, the proposed
settlement along with a rationale via a Participation Form. The
form is available for download on the class website
forcesaction.com and also provides the option for class members to
request to speak at the hearing if they choose. Completed
Participation Forms must be received by class counsel by mail,
courier, or email on or before June 27, 2024.
Additional information about the class action and proposed
settlement are available at forcesaction.com.
About the class action:
This class action is related to Canadian Armed Forces members who
have experienced racial discrimination or racial harassment in
connection with their military service. Initiated in 2016, the
class action has recently reached a proposed settlement. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Unlawful Fees Class Action for $16 Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Capital One agreed to pay $16
million to resolve claims it charged unlawful fees for returned
check or ACH debit transactions.
The settlement benefits current and former Capital One account
holders whom the bank charged a representment fee between Sept. 1,
2015, and Jan. 12, 2022.
The settlement agreement defines a representment fee as "an
unrefunded [nonsufficient funds] NSF Fee or an Overdraft Fee
charged to an account holder for either a Represented Check or
Represented ACH, after Capital One had returned that Check or ACH
for insufficient funds and assessed an NSF Fee on a prior
presentment of that Check or ACH."
According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Capital One
violated its account terms by failing to refund NSF fees or
overdraft fees it charged for represented check or ACH
transactions. These fees should have been refunded once the
customers presented checks and ACH debits for payment, the
plaintiffs contend.
Capital One is a bank and lender that offers checking accounts,
savings accounts, auto loans and other types of accounts.
Capital One hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $16
million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a pro
rata share of the net settlement fund based on the number of
eligible fees they were charged during the class period. Current
account holders will receive their share of the settlement fund as
an account credit, while former account holders will receive a
physical check.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 17, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
15, 2024.
No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a
settlement payment.
Who's Eligible
Current and former Capital One account holders whom the bank
charged a representment fee between Sept. 1, 2015 and Jan. 12,
2022.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Exclusion Deadline
06/17/2024
Case Name
McNeil v. Capital One Bank NA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00473-NRM-TAM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Final Hearing
07/15/2024
Settlement Website
CapitalOneRepresentmentLitigation.com
Claims Administrator
Bob McNeil v. Capital One Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@CapitalOneRepresentmentLitigation.com
Tel: (844) 727-1045
Class Counsel
Jeff Ostrow
Jonathan Streisfeld
Daniel Tropin
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
1 West Las Olas Blvd., 5th Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Jeffrey D Kaliel
Sophia G Gold
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th St NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 350-4783
Andrea R Gold
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #1010
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 949-3783
James Pizzirusso
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
Defense Counsel
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
300 West 6th Street, Suite 1850
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 582-6950
Fax: (512) 582-6949 [GN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Seeks Partial Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER M. SANSONE, and
BALDEMAR ORDUNO, JR., Individually and on Behalf of Other Members
of the Public Similarly Situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AND TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, Case No.
3:17-cv-01880-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal.), he Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting partial summary judgment against the
Defendant TW as to: Plaintiffs' and VPCMs' 1st Claim for Relief for
Violation of Labor Code section 227.3 and 6th Claim for Relief for
Unfair Competition; as well as TWCA's 17th Affirmative Defense of
"payment, settlement, or release" and 18th Affirmative Defense of
"setoff."
Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZYT2YK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
London D. Meservy, Esq.
MESERVY LAW, P.C.
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 779-1276
Facsimile: (866) 231-8132
E-mail: london@meservylawpc.com
- and -
Matthew S. Dente, Esq.
DENTE LAW, P.C.
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 550-3475
Facsimile: (619) 342-9668
E-mail: matt@dentelaw.com
- and -
Justin A. Morello, Esq.
MORELLO LAW, P.C.
3170 Fourth Avenue, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 277-4677
Facsimile: (619) 924-4268
E-mail: justin@morellolawpc.com
CHEDDAR CAPITAL: Starling Allowed to Conduct Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R'KES STARLING, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CHEDDAR CAPITAL
PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02807-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas Parker entered an order granting plaintiff's
motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages
discovery.
On Dec. 27, 2023, the Plaintiff sued Defendant under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Business Commerce Code, after
he allegedly received unwanted, prerecorded telephone calls.
Cheddar is a financial institution that offers business loans,
equipment financing, funding, and invoice factoring services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XD0Lnv at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHW GROUP: Shegian Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Voice Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEROUHE SHEGIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CHW GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. _____
(D.N.J., May 2, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Allegedly, Defendant utilizes prerecorded voice calls to solicit
consumers who have not consented to being called with prerecorded
calls.
Headquartered in Edison, NJ, CHW Group, Inc. offers home warranty
plans for high cost repair or replacement of major systems and
appliances. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400.4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: Court Certifies Suit Over Landlord's Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jewell, writing for cleveland.com, reports that a federal
judge will allow a class action lawsuit to proceed against the city
over an additional $100 annual registration fee charged to
landlords who reside outside Cuyahoga County.
At issue is the city's legal right to keep what could be
approaching the $500,000 mark in extra fees collected since January
2019.
These fees are paid by out-of-county property owners in order to
obtain certificates of occupancy for their rental units.
The nonprofit 1851 Center for Constitutional Law filed the lawsuit
in U.S. District Court in January 2023 on behalf of Sole Houses
LLC, based in Richfield (Summit County).
Sole Houses owns 19 homes, two of those duplexes, for a total of 21
units in Cleveland Heights. Its affiliates also are listed as
plaintiffs.
In an April 11 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge J. Philip
Calabrese granted legal representation for more than 1,000 other
residential rental property owners outside the county who have paid
the disputed fee in recent years.
However, the amount sought by the landlords could be capped, based
on possible application of a two-year statute of limitations.
Calabrese's 29-page opinion and order refers to $400,000 collected
by the city from January 2019 and according to the amended
complaint, into early February 2023, a little over a four-year
span.
Sole Houses and the 1851 Center have argued for a six-year statute
of limitations on the nonresident fee, while the city wants only
two years to be considered by the court, which in turn would also
reduce the amount of any potential refunds.
Calabrese has yet to rule on a summary judgment and dismissal of
the case requested by the city, as well as a preliminary injunction
sought by the landlords against further collections of the extra
fee.
"There are ways to address those issues other than by
fast-forwarding to a ruling on the merits now," Calabrese wrote,
focusing strictly on the grant of "class (action) certification"
for the landlords.
An amended complaint by the 1851 Center argues that the city
"penalizes non-resident homeowners in violation of the U.S. and
Ohio Constitutions' right to equal protection and due process."
The landlords claim this amounts to "unlawful enrichment" and even
"extortion" on the city's part in levying fees beyond property
taxes on nonresident owners.
In a press release entitled "Class action certified against
Cleveland Heights' attack on outside ownership," 1851 Center
Executive Director Maurice Thompson said, "Ohio cities cannot
plunder Ohioans for simply carrying on business across county
lines."
Cleveland Heights City Law Director Bill Hanna said last week that
even with the partial victory claimed by the plaintiffs in the
court's granting class action status, there's still a long way to
go. "The case is not over at all," Hanna said. "The merits haven't
been addressed by the court in any way."
Hanna declined to comment further on the pending litigation Friday
(April 26).
When the lawsuit was filed in federal court last year, City
Director of Communications and Public Engagement Mike Thomas issued
this statement:
"The City of Cleveland Heights has adopted and enforces various
housing, building and business codes to protect the city's housing
stock, neighborhoods and the health, safety and welfare of the
public and city residents, including those who rent their homes and
those who live in homes they own."
In appointing three attorneys from the 1851 Center -- including
Thompson -- as the class action counsel for the landlords,
Calabrese noted that the legal advocacy firm has already invested a
significant amount of time in the case.
Calabrese also rejected the city's legal argument that Sole Houses
LLC amounts to a "'zombie entity,' because it has no employees and
is totally controlled by The Crossroads Group, making it an alter
ego for the real party in interest."
At the same time, Calabrese notes that the 1851 Center "attempts to
define the playing field using terms like ‘assessment' and
‘surcharge,' an effort the court takes more as a rhetorical
exercise than a precisely technical or legal one.
"At times, perhaps, the plaintiffs take that practice too far,"
Calabrese added in his opinion and order.
"In any event, this problem -- to the extent it is one -- is easily
solved."
As for the 1851 Center's "due process" contentions, Calabrese said
the doctrine amounts to "protecting an individual's right 'to have
his own day in court.'"
In the press release, Thompson added that "Ohioans maintain a
fundamental right to own and use private property any way that
doesn't inflict harm on others, and to live where they wish while
doing so," [GN]
CLUB EARLYBIRD: Faces Furdock Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FURDOCK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. CLUB EARLYBIRD LLC, Case No. 24-001887-CI (Fla. Cir.,
Apr. 29, 2024) contends that the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to the Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and
8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff, in violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
On Feb. 27, 2024, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff an electronic
mail communication in connection with the collection of the
Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent from
akeupeasy@clubearlybird.com and delivered to the Plaintiff's
personal e-mail address. The Communication was received by the
Plaintiff at 5:51 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. The Defendant
did not have the consent of the Plaintiff to communicate with the
Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM, the Plaintiff
asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the Class defined as:
"FCCPA Class consisting of: [1] all persons with Florida
addresses [2] that the Defendant or someone on Defendant's
behalf [3] sent an electronic mail communication to [4]
between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM [5] in connection with the
collection of a consumer debt."
The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from
the Class.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in
Pinellas County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces C.S. Suit Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
C.S., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03232
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to
provide students with a safe learning environment and asserts a
claim for breach of contract.
On April 18, 2024, a group of extreme demonstrators at Columbia
began occupying a centrally located section of campus they call the
"Liberated Zone" where they erected a "Gaza Solidarity Encampment"
with more than 60 tents and have actively blocked Jewish and other
students -- by force, harassment, and threats of violence -- who do
not share their views from traversing the campus and attending
classes. However, Columbia's administration ultimately agreed to
allow both these extreme demonstrators and the encampment to remain
in place, and decided to bar the only Jewish professor speaking out
on behalf of the Jewish students from entering campus. In addition,
the administration decided to take shift to a hybrid model of
education for the remainder of the academic year, making no attempt
to solve the safety problem on campus and creating two very
different educational experiences for Jewish and non-Jewish
students, says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an emergency injunction, through a
motion filed contemporaneously with this complaint, requiring
Columbia to enforce its Statement of Ethical Conduct and
Administrative Code of Conduct to provide safe and secure access to
education free from harassment and discrimination so that Plaintiff
and the Class members can safely complete the semester in person
with the rest of the student body.
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York is the
legal name of Columbia University, a private university based in
New York, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
David I. Mindell, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312.589.6370
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
ascharg@edelson.com
dmindell@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.234.5342
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
- and-
Carrie Goldberg, Esq.
C.A. GOLDBERG, PLLC
16 Court Street, 33rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11241
Telephone: (646) 666-8908
E-mail: carrie@cagoldberglaw.com
CONTINENTAL AG: Faces Suit Over Replacement Tires' Fixed Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN-LANDERS LLC D/B/A MARK MARTIN FORD AND MARTIN-LANDERS
IMPORTS LLC D/B/A MARK MARTIN KIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT;
CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES
ETABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC;
NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR
TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC;
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; and BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-11185-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 2, 2024) arises from a per
se unlawful agreement between the Defendants to artificially
increase and fix the prices of new replacement tires for passenger
cars, vans, trucks, buses, and motorcycles sold in the United
States, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various
state antitrust laws.
The suit alleges that the Defendants entered into and engaged in a
continuing combination, conspiracy, or agreement to unreasonably
restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
artificially restraining competition with respect to the price of
new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks, buses, and
motorcycles sold within the United States for the purpose and
effect of raising prices.
The Defendants unlawful agreement to fix prices of Tires is
supported by: (i) Defendants' sudden and dramatic parallel price
increases, which absent a conspiracy to fix prices, ran contrary to
their economic interests; (ii) European Commission dawn raids of
the Defendants; (iii) the high level of market concentration in the
Tires market; (iv) significant barriers to entry; (v) lack of
economic substitutes for Tires; (vi) standardization of Tires with
a high degree of interchangeability; and (vii) the many
opportunities that the Defendants' employees had to conspire with
one another to fix prices of Tires, coupled with their motivation
to achieve an unlawful end, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are threatened
with future injury to their business and property because of the
Defendants' continuing violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
within the meaning of Section 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 26. They seek to represent a Class of individuals
and entities that purchased Tires indirectly from Defendants at
supra-competitive prices to recover damages, injunctive relief, and
other relief as is appropriate, based on Defendants' violation of
federal and state antitrust laws.
Martin-Landers purchased Tires manufactured by one or more of the
Defendants within the States of Arkansas during the Class Period,
and suffered antitrust injury as a result of the violations alleged
in this complaint.
Continental AG manufactures tires, automotive parts, and industrial
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam T. Schnatz, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 965-8287
E-mail: aschnatz@clarkhill.com
- and -
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
W. Greg Wright, Esq.
Brandon C. Landt, Esq.
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
idiel@midwest-law.com
gwright@midwest-law.com
blandt@midwest-law.com
hhepner@midwest-law.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Kyle Oxford, Esq.
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
koxford@burnscharest.com
knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
- and -
Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 374-1058
E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
CREDIT BUREAU: Court Extends Case Progression Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD D. MYERS,
Bankruptcy trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Donna Jean
Lunsford, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; and DONNA J. HAMILTON, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC.,
and C. J. TIGHE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Kate O. Rahel entered an order granting the parties'
stipulation for extension of case progression deadlines.
The Court entered an ordered that the provisions of the Court's
previous final progression order remain in effect, and in addition
to those provisions, case progression shall be amended as follows:
1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this
time
but will be set after the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs'
motion
for class certification.
2) The status conference presently set for May 30, 2024, is
canceled.
3) A status conference to discuss case progression and the
parties'
interest in settlement is set for Aug. 15, 2024 at 10:00 A.M.
by
telephone.
4) The deadline for completion of remaining discovery is July
31,
2024.
5) The deadline to file motions for class certification is Aug.
14,
2024.
6) The deadline for summary judgment motions is Sep. 17, 2024.
7) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and
agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that
are
not inconsistent with this order.
Credit Bureau provides asset recovery services and debt solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2OeGYl at no extra
charge.[CC]
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Bell
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Bell, et al., v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00744-JKB (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge James Bredar entered an order denying Defendant's Bid
for summary judgment.
CSX is a Class I freight railroad company operating in the Eastern
United States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 8, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRQxgq
at no extra charge.[CC]
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over RICO Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C. inform current and former
SilverScript Part D beneficiaries that the firms have filed a class
action lawsuit against CVS Health Corporation, SilverScript
Insurance Company, LLC, and other related entities, for violations
of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act and
other federal and state laws. The action, captioned Jones v. CVS
Health Corporation, et al., Case No. Case 2:24-cv-01703, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
The class action lawsuit alleges that SilverScript Part D
beneficiaries have been prevented from accessing less costly,
generic versions of the following brand name prescription drugs:
Invega, Asacol HD, Renvela packets, Renvela tablets, Harvoni,
Epclusa, Ventolin HFA, Canasa Rectal Suppository, and Advair Diskus
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants, along with
five of the largest manufacturers of brand name drug products,
implemented a fraudulent scheme to prevent Medicare Part D
beneficiaries covered by SilverScript plans from accessing cheaper
generic versions of these drugs, which resulted in the
beneficiaries only having access to the costlier brand name
versions. As a result of their fraudulent scheme, the Defendants
and their co-conspirators have profited at the expense of elderly
patients suffering from the life-altering illnesses that these
drugs treat.
You can contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. of Kessler Topaz by
calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com. You can also
fill out our form by CLICKING HERE or go to:
https://www.ktmc.com/cvs-and-silverscript-subscriber-class-action
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries.
For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.
ABOUT CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C. is one of the leading
law firms in the New Jersey -- New York metropolitan area, serving
a diverse clientele ranging from small businesses to Fortune 500
corporations. Carella Byrne has led - or been part of the
leadership team - in many of the nation's most complex and
important class actions affecting consumer rights. More about the
law firm and its successes can be found at www.carellabyrne.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
CVS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Willingham Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA WILLINGHAM, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00167 (D.R.I.,
April 29, 2024) arises from Defendant's willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and for common law claims of breach of
contract or unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff Christina Willingham worked as a remote tech specialist
from approximately December 2022 to November 2023. Allegedly,
Defendant requires its tech specialists to routinely work a
full-time schedule, plus overtime, however, Defendant does not
compensate tech specialists for all work performed. The Defendant
schedules its tech specialists to work 40 hours per week, requires
them to be call-ready at the start of their scheduled shifts, but
only pays them for time spent logged into the phone system rather
than actual hours worked, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Woonsocket, RI, CVS Health Corporation provides,
among other services, prescription drug coverage, health insurance,
and pharmacies throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Ave.
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 662-4426
E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com
DATABRICKS INC: Faces Makkai Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA MAKKAI, JASON REYNOLDS, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DATABRICKS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and MOSAIC ML, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-02653 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024) sues the Defendants for
copyright infringement.
As the owners of the registered copyrights in the Infringed Works,
the Plaintiffs and Class members hold the exclusive rights to those
books. The Plaintiffs allege that MosaicML made multiple copies of
the Books3 dataset during the training of the MPT-7B and MPT-30B
models. MosaicML made further copies of the Books3 dataset or
subsets thereof to train other models in the MPT family.
For instance, MosaicML released a model called
MPT-7B-StoryWriter-65k+ ("the StoryWriter model"), a variant of
MPT-7B that MosaicML admits was further trained on "a filtered
fiction subset of the [B]ooks3 dataset." The stated purpose of the
StoryWriter model is "to read and write stories"—or, put another
way, to generate works that directly compete with works in the
training dataset.
The Plaintiffs and the Class members never authorized MosaicML to
make copies of their Infringed Works, make derivative works,
publicly display copies, or distribute copies (or derivative
works). All those rights belong exclusively to Plaintiffs and the
Class members under the U.S. Copyright Act, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured by MosaicML's
acts of direct copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs and Class
members are entitled to statutory damages, actual damages,
restitution of profits, and other remedies provided by law, the
suit adds.
Plaintiff Makkai is an author who lives in Illinois. She owns
registered copyrights in multiple books, including, The Hundred
Year House.
Plaintiff Jason Reynolds is an author who lives in Washington, D.C.
He owns registered copyrights in multiple books, including As Brave
as You.
Databricks is a global data, analytics and artificial intelligence
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Alexander J. Sweatman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
James A. Ulwick, Esq.
David A. Straite, Esq.
Brian O'Mara, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
briano@dicellolevitt.com
DERMACARE LLC: MacPhee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MACPHEE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. DERMACARE LLC D/B/A BLUECHEW, Case No. CACE-24-005555
(Fla. Cir. 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 22, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's alleged illegal
act of sending electronic mail communication to customers for the
purpose of debt collection during prohibited hours. On July 3, 2023
at 3:32 AM in Plaintiff's time zone, the Defendant sent an
electronic mail communication to Plaintiff advising him of his
subscription renewal. Under the FCCPA, creditors are prohibited
from communicating with a debtor between the hours of 9:00 PM and
8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the
debtor. The Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief pursuant to the FCCPA.
Based in Chicago, IL, Dermacare LLC is a retailer of skincare
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-11 36
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
DIAMOND DOLLS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA HYNEY and HEIDE WINKLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by DIAMOND
DOLLS, INC. and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled
by DIAMOND DOLLS, INC. v. DIAMOND DOLLS, INC., and any related
entities, Case No. 6:24-cv-00575-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Apr. 29, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations.
Beginning in April 2018, and continuing through the present, the
Defendant has allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of
improperly deducting "fines", "fees", "house fees" "tip outs" and
miscellaneous improper surcharges from their entertainment employee
earnings. the Defendant strongly recommends entertainers to share
their tips with workers who do not provide customer service and who
are paid an hourly wage. The Defendants' deceptive conduct
prevented the named Plaintiff's and the Class Members from
discovering or asserting their claims any earlier than they did
including taking steps to lead the named Plaintiff's and Class
Members to believe that they were independent contractors and not
employees, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiffs further seeks straight time wages, improper
deductions from wages, of which they were deprived, plus statutory
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Ms. Hyney was employed by the Defendant as an entertainment
employee from October 2022 through December 2022 and from Jan. 1,
2024, through March 13, 2024.
Ms. Winkleman was employed by the Defendant as an entertainment
employee from March 2018 to March 18, 2024.
The Defendant operates an adult entertainment establishment under
the name "Diamond Dolls."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Embry Due Dec. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHYANN EMBRY, et. al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v.
DISCOUNT MOTORS, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00078-HBB (W.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Brent Brennenstuhl entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
-- Motion to amend pleadings or join June 18, 2024
additional parties:
-- Close of fact discovery: Sept. 17, 2024
-- Disclosure of experts (Rule 26(a)(2)):
i. Plaintiffs: July 9, 2024
ii. Defendants: July 9, 2024
-- Close of expert discovery: Sept. 17, 2024
-- Joint status report (including Sept. 23, 2024
position(s) on mediation):
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Dec. 10, 2024
Certification shall be due no
later than”
Discount Motors is an independent automotive retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XweN8P at no extra
charge.[CC]
DROPBOX INC: Walker Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
AQUELIA WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others who are
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DROPBOX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-02659 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff and other
similar situated individuals' personal identifiable information.
The class action arises out of out of the recent targeted
cyberattack against Dropbox that enabled a third party to access
Defendant's computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise
of highly sensitive PII. However, Defendant's Notice failed to
disclose how it discovered the encrypted files on its computer
systems were impacted, the means and mechanisms of the cyberattack,
the reason for the delay in notifying Plaintiff and the Class of
the data breach, how Defendant determined that the private
information had been accessed by an unauthorized party, says the
suit.
Headquartered in California, Dropbox is a publicly traded
technology company that offers cloud storage, file synchronization,
file sharing and client software services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
DYE & DURHAM: Plaintiffs' Counsel in Anticompetitive Suit Retained
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino of the Canadian Lawyer reports that the Federal Court
of Appeal has refused to remove the plaintiffs' counsel in a class
action lawsuit involving allegations of anti-competitive conduct by
major technology firms.
The appellants in the case had sought to disqualify the counsel on
the grounds that they had previously received confidential
information during a different legal matter that could affect the
fairness of the ongoing litigation.
The case centred around accusations under s. 45 of the Competition
Act, involving companies Dye & Durham and DoProcess, part of a
proposed class action asserting that the defendants conspired to
increase prices of real estate conveyancing software, which
allegedly harmed competition and violated Canadian competition
laws.
The appellants argued that Calvin Goldman, formerly a lawyer with
Goodmans LLP and later acting independently, along with Nicholas
Cartel and Glenn Brandys of Cartel & Bui LLP, had a conflict of
interest. They claimed that Goldman, during his prior engagements
on related competition matters under s. 79 of the act had access to
sensitive information that could disadvantage the appellants in the
current s. 45 litigation.
However, the Federal Court of Appeal found no substantial risk of
using this information in the current case. The initial court
decision concluded that the information shared during Goldman's
previous retainer was not sufficiently relevant to the current
legal proceedings to warrant his disqualification. Moreover, the
court determined that the matters of the previous and current
retainers were not sufficiently related to presume that
confidential information would inevitably be misused.
Despite recognizing a "limited but certain underlying commonality"
between the provisions, the appellate court agreed with the lower
court's assessment that the legal contexts were distinct enough not
to trigger concerns about the misuse of confidential information.
The Federal Court of Appeal underscored that while there is a legal
framework to prevent conflicts of interest in legal representation,
removing counsel should not undermine a party's right to counsel of
their choice without substantial evidence of potential prejudice.
The appellate court also emphasized the need for tangible evidence
showing that any shared information during previous retainers would
likely impact the current proceedings materially and adversely,
which the appellants failed to provide.
Furthermore, the appeal court acknowledged the federal court's
finding of lack of direct connection between the shared information
and the specifics of the current case. The federal court noted that
the appellants provided only theoretical assertions without
concrete evidence that confidential data obtained previously by
Goldman would be used against them. Accordingly, the court
dismissed the appeal. [GN]
ELEV8 CENTER: Thompson Seeks Conditional Collective Status
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUN THOMPSON and
MARCELLA WATT, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, v. ELEV8 CENTER NEW YORK, LLC., d/b/a ELEV8 CENTERS,
d/b/a ELEV8, URBAN RECOVERY HOUSE LLC., d/b/a URBAN RECOVERY, LEE
WEISS, and DONNA MAE DEPOLA, Case No. 1:20-cv-09581-MMG-JLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification and for
court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).
Elev8 is a modern organization focusing on the care and treatment
of those suffering from substance and alcohol use disorders.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lNma7P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ELI LILLY & CO: Actos Third Party Payor Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Actos third
party payor class suit is ongoing in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.
The Company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) in a third party payor
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
Plaintiffs claim that they and similarly situated class members are
entitled to recover money paid for or to reimburse Actos
prescriptions because of alleged concealment of bladder cancer
risk.
Its agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify
the Company against its losses and expenses with respect to U.S.
litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos
and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.
In August 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted our and Takeda's petition
for permission to appeal the class certification order, and the
appeal is being briefed.
This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of
Indianapolis, IN.
ELI LILLY & CO: Mosaic Health Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Mosaic Health
antitrust class suit is ongoing in the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York.
In July 2021, the Company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC
(Sanofi), Novo Nordisk Inc. (Novo Nordisk), and AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca), were named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging
antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants'
340B distribution programs.
The Company, with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca, filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted in September 2022.
In January 2024, the court dismissed the case.
In February 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of
Indianapolis, IN.
FASHIONPILE GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Martinez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FASHIONPHILE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02988-BMC
(E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) accuses the Defendant of discrimination
arising from access barriers encountered by Plaintiff on
Defendant's website.
This action arises from Defendant's alleged failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.fashionpile.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant's website is not compatible with screen access programs
which Plaintiff use to read website content. By not giving
Plaintiff full and equal access to its website, the Defendant
denied Plaintiff the full use and enjoyment of the goods and
services it offers, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, says the suit.
Fashionpile Group, LLC is an online fashion resale company based in
Carlsbad, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
FLORIDA: Court Certifies Medicaid Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Margie Menzel, writing for WFSU News, reports that a federal judge
has cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit that alleges Florida
did not properly inform people before dropping them from the
Medicaid program after a COVID-19 public health emergency ended.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard last week issued a
70-page order that rejected arguments by the state that the case
should not proceed as a class action. Howard also denied a state
request for a continuance of a trial scheduled to start May 13.
The lawsuit, filed in August in Jacksonville and revamped in
January, stems from a process that the state started in spring 2023
to determine whether more than 5 million people enrolled in
Medicaid remained eligible for benefits. The process came after the
end of the federal COVID-19 public-health emergency -- a three-year
period when the state effectively could not drop people from
Medicaid.
Attorneys for Medicaid beneficiaries contend that a lack of proper
notice about the discontinuation of coverage violated due-process
rights and a federal Medicaid law. In part, the lawsuit seeks an
injunction to block continued use of the disputed notices and to
reinstate Medicaid coverage to people until they receive adequate
notices of termination.
"In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiffs have a
constitutionally protected property interest in their Medicaid
benefits, and that they were deprived of that interest when the
state terminated those benefits," Howard wrote. "Thus, the issue in
resolving this claim will be whether the state provided
constitutionally-inadequate process."
The lawsuit has five named plaintiffs, but their attorneys argued
it should be a class action that would apply to a far-larger number
of people. While narrowing the plaintiffs' proposed definition of
people included in the class, Howard ruled that the lawsuit met
legal tests to be treated as a class action. The ruling did not
decide the underlying issues in the case.
Family income plays a key role in determining whether people are
eligible for Medicaid. In the narrowed class definition, Howard
focused on how the notices provided information about people being
dropped because of income determinations.
"The record reflects that all termination notices based on income
contain uniform omissions such as the lack of individualized income
information and income standards," wrote Howard, who was appointed
to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush. "As such,
the court will certify a single class to resolve the issue of
whether termination notices which lack this information are
adequate to satisfy the requirements of due process and the
Medicaid Act when the enrollee is found ineligible based on
income."
She added that "some notices reflect an additional omission in the
lack of a designated reason identifying income as the basis for the
ineligibility determination. As such, the court finds it
appropriate to certify a subclass encompassing individuals who
received this form of notice."
Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal and state governments,
and Washington agreed to pick up more of the tab for the program as
part of the public-health emergency, which was declared in January
2020.
But in exchange for the extra money, states had to agree that they
wouldn't drop people from the Medicaid rolls during the emergency.
Florida's program grew from about 3.8 million beneficiaries in
January 2020 to nearly 5.78 million in April 2023.
Beginning in spring 2023, Florida and other states began
re-determining beneficiaries' eligibility. Florida's Medicaid
enrollment totaled 4.675 million in March 2024, about 1.1 million
lower than in April 2023, according to state Agency for Health Care
Administration numbers.
Attorneys for state Agency for Health Care Administration Secretary
Jason Weida and Department of Children and Families Secretary
Shevaun Harris, the named defendants in the case, have disputed the
allegations about improper notice and tried to prevent
certification as a class action.
In a March court filing, the attorneys argued that the case is
"ill-suited to class treatment" and pointed to different
circumstances among people who received notices.
"Plaintiffs' claim that class members were deprived of due process
ignores dissimilarities and case-specific variations that defeat
any attempt to adjudicate the rights of all class members at once,"
the March filing said. "It incorrectly assumes that the court need
only assess in isolation standard passages in the notices to
determine whether DCF (the Department of Children and Families)
denied due process to every class member. Because individualized
facts are relevant, the rights of class members cannot be litigated
as though they are not." [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 29, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA MILLER, et al., v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.),the
Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed April 4, 2025
no later than:
-- The parties shall disclose initial May 5, 2025
experts and produce reports in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than:
-- With regard to expert testimony intended June 4, 2025
solely for rebuttal, those experts shall
be disclosed and reports produced in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before:
-- All expert discovery shall be completed July 18, 2025
no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for Aug. 29, 2025
class certification by no later than:
-- All other motions, except motions for Dec. 12, 2025
continuances, temporary restraining
orders, or other emergency applications,
shall be filed on or before:
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1fG6NX at no extra
charge.[CC]
GEICO GENERAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Marcelletti Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-MWP
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian Payson entered a scheduling order
as follows:
-- The deadline to file motions to amend Sept. 3, 2024
the pleadings or to add parties shall
be:
-- The Defendant shall file its papers in Feb. 7, 2025
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification (including any expert
reports/declarations in support thereof) by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file its reply papers April 7, 2025
(including any rebuttal expert reports/
declarations in support thereof) by:
Geico operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MBtPaU at no extra
charge.[CC]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Conry Class Suit Over Antitrust Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CONRY, KELSEY DAKER, HAILEY RONAYNE, and ROBYN SUSSMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, L. PERRIGO COMPANY,
and PBM NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00295 (E.D. Va., April
22, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating federal and state
antitrust laws and unfair competition and unjust enrichment laws.
The Defendants allegedly entered into an anti-competitive agreement
to maintain Perrigo's position as the only manufacturer of
store-brand infant formula sold to retailers in the United States.
The anti-competitive conduct allegedly enabled Perrigo to keep its
monopoly, allowing the company to set supra-competitive prices for
store-brand formula in the country, which violates federal and
state antitrust laws and has caused significant injury to retailers
and consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class members. The
Plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Sherman Act and state
antitrust statutes, as well as unjust enrichment.
Gerber manufactures child nutritional products and is based in
Arlington, VA. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL P C
Bank of America Center
1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 775-6900
Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
kfunk@dagglaw.com
- and -
Simon B. Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI AND BENDESKY PC
120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
Horsham, PA 19044
Telephone: (215) 575-3895
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
beichel@bonizack.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
gdever@finekaplan.com
GLOBAL CORD: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 24
---------------------------------------------------------
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
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.
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.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
GLOBE LIFE: Class Action Implicates Sexual Harassment and Drug Use
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Araullo, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the US District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas versus Globe Life for alleged
violations of federal securities laws.
Filed by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLB&G), the
suit alleges that the life insurer, formerly known as Torchmark
Corporation, and several of its current and former executives,
violated laws during a period from May 8, 2019, to April 10, 2024.
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of the City of Miami General
Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust. The complaint
stems from an investigation by BLB&G.
The legal complaint contends that throughout the class period,
Globe Life and the defendants issued several materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose vital information
regarding the company's premium revenue growth and its code of
business conduct and ethics. Notably, the company attributed its
revenue growth to an increase in agent count and productivity,
claims now under scrutiny.
Moreover, Globe Life's public code of conduct promised a commitment
to an inclusive, safe working environment, prohibiting violence,
threats, and illegal drug use. However, these standards were
allegedly not upheld, contributing to an artificially inflated
stock price during the class period.
The allegations came to light on April 11, 2024, when an investment
research firm released a report claiming widespread insurance fraud
at Globe Life since 2017. The report claimed that some subsidiaries
issued policies to deceased or fictitious individuals and added
policies to existing customer accounts without their consent.
Furthermore, it described a hostile work environment within Globe
Life subsidiaries, including unchecked sexual harassment and drug
use.
Globe Life is an insurance provider known for its low-cost life
insurance products with lower payouts and operates through five
wholly owned subsidiaries, including American Income Life Insurance
Company (AIL), which is the largest in terms of premiums collected
and the number of sales agents employed. [GN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: Agrees to Settle 2014 Trading Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Goldman Sachs (GS.N), opens new tab said on
May 3 it had reached an in-principle settlement to resolve a 2014
class action lawsuit related to trading in platinum and palladium.
The investment bank was among a number of defendants named in the
lawsuit, which alleged they had violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and
palladium prices.
The agreement is subject to final documentation and court approval,
Goldman disclosed, adding that it had set aside reserves for its
contribution to the settlement amount. [GN]
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McCurdy Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MCCURDY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYLOCK MCKINNON ASSOCIATES INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11015-DJC (D. Mass., April 17, 2024) is
a class action lawsuit against Greylock for its negligent failure
to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly
sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health
information culminating in a massive and preventable data breach.
According to Greylock, on May 30, 2023, Greylock detected unusual
activity in its internal network. After an investigation, it was
determined that Greylock was the subject of a ransomware attack.
The cybercriminal group behind the ransomware attack obtained
copies of files from Greylock's systems.
As a result of Greylock's insufficient data security,
cybercriminals easily infiltrated Greylock's inadequately protected
computer systems and stole the private information of Plaintiff and
the Class (approximately 341,650 individuals). Due to Defendant's
negligence, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they
need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and
personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit.
Greylock McKinnon Associates Inc. was founded in 2005. The
company's line of business includes providing business consulting
services on a contract or fee basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: McLaughlin Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREYLOCK MCKINNON ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11013-JCB (D. Mass., April 17, 2024) is
a class action lawsuit against Greylock for its negligent failure
to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' protected
health information and personally identifiable information
culminating in a preventable data breach.
On April 5, 2024, Greylock McKinnon, filed a notice of data breach
with the Attorney General of Maine after discovering that the
company was the recent target of a cyberattack. On no later than
May 30, 2023, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party
cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PHI/PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in
the misuse of the PHI/PII, including marketing and selling
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII.
As a result, the PHI/PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future, says the suit.
Greylock McKinnon Associates Inc. was founded in 2005. The
company's line of business includes providing business consulting
services on a contract or fee basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 944-9455
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
HCF MANAGEMENT: Kordie Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE KORDIE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. HCF MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00139-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio,
May 2, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to pay employees
overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Ohio Prompt Payment Act.
The Plaintiff says she worked 40 or more hours in one or more
workweek(s). The Defendant did not include all additional
remuneration, such as non-discretionary bonuses, in the Plaintiff's
regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime, the
Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff brings her FLSA overtime claims as a representative
action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees of the opt-in collective consisting of the following:
"All current and former hourly employees who received
additional remuneration in workweeks that they were paid for
more than 40 hours during the three (3) years preceding the
filing of this Complaint and continuing through the final
disposition of this case ("FLSA Collective" or "FLSA
Collective Members").
The Plaintiff brings her OPPA claims pursuant to Rule 23 as a class
action on behalf of herself and all other members of the following
class:
"All current and former Ohio hourly healthcare employees
who received additional remuneration in workweeks that they
were paid for more than forty (40) hours during the two (2)
years preceding the filing of this Complaint and continuing
through the final disposition of this case ("Ohio Rule 23
Class" or "Ohio Rule 23 Class Members").
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly State
Tested Nursing Assistant ("STNA") from June 2022 until February
2024.
HFC is a collection of senior housing communities providing
housing, assisted living, rehabilitation, and long-term care for
seniors and families at approximately 25 locations throughout the
states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
HEARTLAND FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger With UMB Financial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Malaysian Reserve reports that Monteverde & Associates PC (the
"M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and
is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities
Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire
State Building in New York City and is investigating Heartland
Financial, USA Inc. (NASDAQ: HTLF), relating to its proposed merger
with UMB Financial Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement,
it is expected that Heartland Financial shareholders will own
approximately 31% of the combined company.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
ADVERTISING
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]
HILL VALLEY: Faces Winrow Suit Over Miscalculated Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIM WINROW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HILL VALLEY HEALTHCARE, LLC, and FORK UNION SNF
OPERATIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00029-RSB-JCH (W.D.
Va., April 29, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
Plaintiff Winrow was employed by Defendants as a certified nursing
assistant from approximately July 2023 to December 2023. She
alleges that the Defendants have violated and continue to violate
the FLSA and VOWA by having a policy or practice of failing to
include non-discretionary bonuses and similar forms of incentive
compensation in calculating overtime rates paid to her and
similarly situated employees for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Headquartered in New York, Hill Valley Healthcare operates skilled
nursing, assisted living, rehabilitation and memory care facilities
in approximately six states, including approximately 29 locations
in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zev Antell, Esq.
BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesille, VA 22901
Telephone: (434) 218-3133
Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over AI Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dworetzky of Bay City News reports that a major antitrust class
action landed in federal court in San Francisco on Friday, alleging
that six major hotel operators colluded to fix prices for their
rooms using AI-powered software that provides pricing
recommendations.
Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives are eight individual
consumers who stayed at one or more of the hotel chains in the last
four years.
The 41-page complaint alleges that Integrated Decisions and
Systems, Inc. or "IDeaS" of Minnesota, and its parent company, SAS
Institute, Inc, created and licensed software called "G3 RMS," that
is the hotel industry's leading "revenue management system."
The defendants allegedly promote their system as a way that
industry operators can gain "competitive advantage" in pricing
decisions, but it is actually an algorithmic tool to fix prices in
an anticompetitive manner.
The suit targets six familiar hotel chains: Hilton Worldwide
Holdings Inc, Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc, Four Seasons Hotels
and Resorts US Inc, Omni Hotels and Resorts Inc, and Hyatt Hotel
Corporation, in addition to Choice Hotels International Inc, which
includes the budget conscious brands Comfort, Quality Inn, Sleep
Inn, Econo Lodge, and Rodeway Inn. Collectively the defendants have
thousands of hotels in the United States.
The suit alleges price fixing in a number of major geographical
markets including the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes San Francisco,
Alameda, Marin, San Mateo, and Contra Costa counties, where all of
the defendants operate hotels.
In San Francisco, each of the defendants have at least one hotel
property except for Choice, which has properties just outside of
the city.
The Sherman Act has long forbidden competitors from agreeing to fix
prices. Because finding evidence of an explicit agreement is
difficult, many cases are based on proving a tacit agreement by
inferring from actions of competitors that would not make business
sense in the absence of an agreement.
Agreements to fix prices are anticompetitive.
For example, if two competitors in the same market each offer the
same product, consumers will tend to buy the lower-priced
alternative.
In the absence of collusion, each competitor would be incentivized
-- at least up to a point -- to undercut the other's pricing. That
type of price competition would benefit the consumer. However, if
each competitor knew that it could raise prices and its competitor
would do the same thing, each could charge prices --
"supra-competitive prices" in economic jargon -- that would benefit
each competitor at the expense of the consumer.
The complaint alleges that defendants have set up a way to automate
the process of price fixing through use of an algorithm powered by
artificial intelligence. The way it allegedly works is that IDeaS's
clients -- all competitors with each other -- agree to supply IDeaS
with proprietary, non-public, and sensitive information about their
room availability, demand, and pricing. The information is provided
continuously, in real time, so that IDeaS always knows what all of
its client-competitors have available in a given market.
G3 RMS then provides individualized pricing recommendations to its
clients designed to maximize their revenue. The complaint alleges
that the recommendations are made at the granularity of pricing for
individual classes of rooms. The recommendations update constantly,
no less than daily, and often several times a day. According to the
complaint, recommendations are almost always adopted automatically
by the hotel operators. Plaintiffs allege, for example, that Choice
adopted the recommendations 93 percent of the time.
Clients are marketed the software with claims that its pricing
recommendations are better than any human person could do on his or
her own and therefore management can essentially outsource all
pricing decisions to the algorithm. In their marketing materials,
defendants allegedly say that use of the system will increase hotel
revenue from 8 to 15 percent.
According to plaintiffs, "by sending their sensitive confidential
pricing and occupancy information to a third party to process,
analyze, and develop supra-competitive prices, the [defendants] are
able to achieve the same result as if they secretly met in a back
room and exchanged their information and agreed to a
supra-competitive price."
Plaintiffs make a number of allegations that they argue give
powerful support to their claims.
First, they allege that when clients use the system, their
occupancy actually declines even as their revenue rises. Falling
occupancy is predicted by the algorithm and is expected. However,
"every defendant is currently charging the highest or near-highest
average rates for hotel rooms in its history despite a lack of
corresponding increase in occupancy demand."
Second, that clients are overtly encouraged and incentivized to
follow the recommendations because "the more faithfully
co-conspirators adopt IDeaS' pricing recommendations, the more
revenue and profit each will earn."
Finally, that the algorithm is not static. Because it is based on
artificial intelligence, the "algorithm is constantly learning,
thereby becoming more adept at setting supra-competitive prices as
it receives additional data. Therefore, as long as users continue
to provide IDeaS with non-public, transaction-level data, the
algorithm's recommended prices will become increasingly effective
at overcharging hotel guests."
Based on that, plaintiffs predict that "the harm to competition and
injury to consumers alleged herein will worsen over time."
So-called "algorithmic pricing" is a relatively new area in
antitrust law but it has attracted concern from antitrust
regulators. The complaint quotes a former commissioner of the
Federal Trade Commission who said that "Just as the antitrust laws
do not allow competitors to exchange competitively sensitive
information directly in an effort to stabilize or control industry
pricing, they also prohibit using an intermediary to facilitate the
exchange of confidential business information."
The commissioner then posed the question, "Is it ok for a guy named
Bob to collect confidential price strategy information from all the
participants in a market, and then tell everybody how they should
price? If it isn't ok for a guy named Bob to do it, then it
probably isn't ok for an algorithm to do it either."
Invitations to comment on the complaint from IDeaS and SAS were not
immediately accepted. Plaintiffs' lawyers also did not respond to a
request for comment.
Copyright © 2024 Bay City News, Inc. All rights reserved.
Republication, rebroadcast or redistribution without the express
written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited. Bay City News
is a 24/7 news service covering the greater Bay Area. [GN]
HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA: Lutz Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LUTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF
AFFILIATES, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-10040 (S.D. Fla., Apr. 29, 2024)
sues the Defendants for agreeing, combining, and conspiring to
impose, implement, and enforce anticompetitive restraints that
reduce price competition in the markets for buyer-agent services in
violation of federal antitrust law and state antitrust statutes,
consumer protection laws, and common law.
Because the Defendants are among the leading real estate firms in
the United States, their participation in the conspiracy is
essential to its success. The Defendants have agreed to participate
in, facilitate, and implement the conspiracy. Each of the
Defendants play an active role in National Association of Realtors
(NAR) and has required franchisees, brokerages, and individual
realtors to join in and implement NAR's anticompetitive agreements
as a condition to receiving the benefits of each Defendant's brand,
brokerage infrastructure, and other support. Defendants use their
control of the Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) and their own
governing policies to ensure adherence to NAR rules, the lawsuit
contends.
The Defendants and their coconspirators further implement the
conspiracy by reviewing and reissuing NAR's rules at yearly NAR
meetings and serving on the boards and committees that enforce
compliance with NAR's rules. The Defendants' unlawful,
anticompetitive conduct causes America's home buyers to pay
inflated commissions for broker services they misrepresent are
free, to pay inflated prices for the homes they purchase, and to
receive reduced quality broker services, the lawsuit avers.
Accordingly, the Defendants' agreements individually and
collectively unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1 and Sections 4 and 16 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 & 26; state antitrust laws;
consumer protection laws; and common law.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are home buyers who purchased their
homes on MLSs affiliated with and governed by NAR.
HomeServices is a real estate brokerage and a member of NAR.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
mklenov@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Noelle Forde, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
nforde@lowe.com
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EL PASO FIREMEN &
POLICEMEN’S PENSION FUND, SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION FUND,
and INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. INNOVAGE HOLDING CORP., MAUREEN
HEWITT, BARBARA GUTIERREZ, JOHN ELLIS BUSH, ANDREW CAVANNA,
CAROLINE DECHERT, EDWARD KENNEDY, JR., PAVITHRA MAHESH, THOMAS
SCULLY, MARILYN TAVENNER, SEAN TRAYNOR, RICHARD ZORETIC, WELSH,
CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE, APAX PARTNERS, L.P., J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED,
WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., CAPITAL ONE
SECURITIES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC,
SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, and ROBERTS & RYAN INVESTMENTS,
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02770-WJM-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, for:
(i) certification of this action as a class action;
(ii) appointment of Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
and
(iii) appointment of Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC
as Class Counsel.
This securities class action, arising from Defendants' class-wide
misstatements and omissions to investors concerning InnovAge's care
model and regulatory compliance, is ideally situated for class
treatment under Rule 23. Lead Plaintiffs are sophisticated
institutional investors, exactly whom Congress intended to lead
securities class actions. Defendants' common course of deceptive
conduct harmed Lead Plaintiffs and the proposed Class. Common,
class-wide questions predominate, and a class action is the
superior means of resolving Lead Plaintiffs' claims.
Lead Plaintiffs now move to certify a Class of all persons and
entities who:
(i) purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock of InnovAge between May 11, 2021, and Dec. 22, 2021,
inclusive; and/or
(ii) purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded InnovAge
common stock either in or traceable to InnovAge's March 4,
2021, IPO and were damaged thereby.
On April 29, 2024, Lead Counsel conferred with Defendants' counsel,
who did not agree to the relief requested.
Innovage, through its subsidiaries, provides skilled nursing,
seniors living, customized healthcare, and social support
services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zjqmkm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
Molly Bowen, Esq.
Jan E. Messerschmidt, Esq.
Brendan R. Schneiderman, Esq.
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
mbowen@cohenmilstein.com
jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
bschneiderman@cohenmilstein.com
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Cecil E. Morris, Esq.
Adrian P. Castro, Esq.
FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P.C.
1801 California Street, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 830-2400
Facsimile: (303) 830-1033
E-mail: cmorris@fwlaw.com
acastro@fwlaw.com
INOVA HEALTH: Discloses Patients' Info to FB, Google, Lugo Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LUGO, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of similarly
situated individuals v. INOVA HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Case No.
1:24-cv-00700 (E.D. Va., Apr. 29, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
misuses and discloses Plaintiff's and putative Class Members'
statutorily protected Personally Identifiable Information and
Protected Health Information to third parties, including Facebook
and Google.
Inova Health allegedly intercepted and disclosed Plaintiff's and
the other Class Members': (1) status as medical patients; (2)
communications with Inova Health through its websites and patient
portal; and (3) information about their medical appointments,
location of treatments, specific medical providers, specific
medical conditions and treatments, and related information.
Specifically, Inova Health disclosed Plaintiff's and other Class
Members' Private Information via tracking technology known as a
tracking pixel that was installed on Inova Health's websites and/or
MyChart Patient Portal, the Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff and the other Class Members are unaware that their
Private Information has been surreptitiously transmitted to
Facebook and Google and did not consent to the collection,
disclosure, and/or use of their Private Information in this manner.
The use of tracking pixels on its websites and patient portal,
MyChart, was a conscious decision by Inova Health to prioritize
profit over its own responsibility to its patients' and their HIPAA
protected privacy rights and constitutes and has caused Plaintiff
and the other Class Members actual harm and entitles them to
statutory damages under the Electronics Communication Privacy Act,
the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Lugo is a patient at Inova Health and has used Inova
Health's websites and MyChart Patient Portal.
Inova is a non-profit hospital organized under the laws of the
state of Virginia and headquartered within Falls Church,
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McNew, Esq.
MICHIE HAMLEETT
310 4th St. NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Telephone: (434) 951-7234
Facsimile: (434) 951-7254
E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com
- and -
Eugene Turin, Esq.
William Kingston, Esq.
Jordan Frysinger, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive 9th Fl
Chicago, IL, 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com
wkingston@mcgpc.com
jfrysinger@mcgpc.com
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Court Junks ERISA-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the ERISA-related class suit with prejudice on April 4,
2024.
On June 2, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the IBM Pension Plan miscalculated certain joint and
survivor annuity pension benefits by using outdated actuarial
tables in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.
IBM, the Plan Administrator Committee, and the IBM Pension Plan are
named as defendants.
On April 4, 2024, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
Headquartered in Armonk, NY, International Business Machines
Corporation is a technology company that provides computer
solutions and offers application, technology consulting and
support, process design and operations, cloud, digital workplace,
and network services. [BN]
IVUEIT LLC: Wilburg Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALICE WILBURG, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IVUEIT, LLC, an
Ohio limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24CV068639, was removed from Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May
2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-02642 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
Headquartered in Colombus, OH, Ivueit LLC provides software for
property inspection services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin E. Gaut, Esq.
Louise Truong, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
Telephone: (310) 312-2000
Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
E-mail: keg@msk.com
ltt@msk.com
JOHN BROWN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
NIHAL ERKAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. John Brown BBQ, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03169 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 29,
2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website https://www.johnbrownbbq.net to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to services John Brown BBQ provides to their non-disabled
customers through its website, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff, with a desire to explore a good barbecue in NYC, was
looking for a restaurant specializing in barbecue and meat. Having
found the Defendant's website, the Plaintiff sought information
about the restaurant and its services but was hindered by
accessibility issues. The attempts to contact the restaurant were
unsuccessful, as the contact information was also inaccessible.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
John Brown BBQ's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Ms. Erkan is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
John Brown specializes in Kansas city-style barbecue and restaurant
services, including dine-in, take-out and delivery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
JOSEPH'S CUSTOM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Joseph's Custom Jewelry, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03247
(S.D.N.Y., Apr. 29, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
https://www.josephjewelry.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Joseph's Custom Jewelry provides
to their non-disabled customers through its website, the lawsuit
asserts.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
ring on Josephjewelry.com. The Plaintiff enjoys wearing jewelry as
she considers that it can complete any outfit. Intending to review
the products, she tried to explore the ring categories available on
the Defendant's website. However, during her visit and analysis of
the products, she encountered numerous accessibility issues, which
made purchasing the desired product impossible for a visually
impaired person, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Joseph's Custom Jewelry’s policies, practices, and procedures to
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Joseph's Custom specializes in various types of fine jewelry
including gold, diamonds, and gemstones.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
JOYY INC: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Hershewe Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
JOYY Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2024 that in May 2023, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for
Central District of California, thus dismissing a putative
securities class action complaint captioned "Hershewe v. JOYY Inc.
et al.," No. 2:20-cv-10611.
Said action was filed in against on November 20, 2020 against the
company and certain of its current and former officers asserting
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks damages based on alleged material misrepresentations and
omissions about its revenue, component businesses, and acquisition
of social entertainment platform "Bigo Live." The proposed class
period was April 28, 2016 through November 18, 2020, inclusive.
On March 9, 2022, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the operative complaint in its entirety with
prejudice. On April 8, 2022, the co-lead plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal. The court heard oral argument on April 21, 2023. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's decision on May 9,
2023 and issued the formal mandate on May 31, 2023.
JOYY Inc. is a global technology company covering live streaming,
short videos, instant messaging, casual games, and others. JOYY
Inc. is a Cayman Islands holding company that conduct operations
primarily through subsidiaries in Singapore, the United States, the
United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions for a majority of its
global business.
JP MORGAN: Valentine Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN VALENTINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03438 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) arises from Defendant's to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients'
employees and asserts claims for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the
New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what
specific type of information was accessed.
Headquartered in New York, NY, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. provides
financial services, including personal banking, credit cards,
mortgages, auto financing, investment advice, small business loans
and payment processing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
KCOSERA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Kcosera, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03249 (S.D.N.Y., Apr.
29, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website "Everydaze.com" to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Kcosera provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff browsed
and intended to make an online purchase of a jelly drink on
Everydaze.com. She wanted to buy healthy snacks to incorporate more
nutrients and vitamins into her diet and to minimize sugar intake
during the day. After browsing the website, she attempted to
purchase the Sweet Jelly C Lemon Lime but faced numerous
difficulties on the way to the Checkout page, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Kcosera's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Kcosera offers jelly with C vitamin, collagen jelly sticks, and
konjac jelly.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Lunchables Products Contain Lead, Palmeri Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT PALMERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02880 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2024) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant
regarding the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Lunchables
products throughout the state of New York and throughout the U.S.
under the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly,
deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to
reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not
disclosing to consumers on their packaging that the products are
contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, which is a powerful
neurotoxin that is known to cause cognitive deficits, mental
illness, dementia, and hypertension.
The Defendant specifically lists the ingredients in the products on
the labeling; however, Defendant fails to disclose that the
products contain, or are at the risk of containing, lead. Instead,
the products packaging uniformly states that they are "100%
Freshness Guaranteed." Alternatively, Plaintiff and Class Members
paid a price premium for the products based upon Defendant's
marketing and advertising campaign including its false and
misleading representations and omission on the products' labels.
Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the
products, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the
amount of the premium paid, says the suit.
The Kraft Heinz Company is an American multinational food
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
KROGER COMPANY: Loses Bid to Toss Barnett Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TASHEBA BARNETT, et al.,
v. THE KROGER COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00544-DRC (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order denying the
Grocery Stores' motion to dismiss amended complaint.
The Grocery Stores argue that Plaintiff Lovincey has failed to
allege an injury to property for the same reason she purportedly
lacks standing—she has suffered no economic injury.
But the Court has already held that Plaintiffs suffered an injury
to property in holding that they have standing to sue. Plaintiffs
were allegedly induced to purchase a product by the Grocery Stores'
alleged misrepresentations.
The Plaintiff Lovincey has alleged an injury to property and has
plausibly stated a claim under the WCPA.
The facts here are straightforward. Plaintiffs allege that "Simple
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RmuOmv at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAWRENCE GOETTISHEIM: Fails to Pay Assistant's OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOCELYN MEDLEY v. LAWRENCE GOETTISHEIM D.D.S., P.C. and LAWRENCE
GOETTISHEIM, Individually, Case No. 7:24-cv-03362 (S.D.N.Y., May 2,
2024) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wage and
unpaid spread-of-hours wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New York Labor Law, as well as those related provisions in
Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.
The Plaintiff worked a total of 50 hours per week, and yet the
Defendants compensated the Plaintiff at a flat rate of $30 per hour
from April 2012 to December 2015, $32 per hour from January 2016 to
December 2018, $35 per hour from January 2019 to December 2021, and
$36 per hour from January 2022 until March 5, 2024. The Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff the lawful overtime compensation of one
and a half times her regular rate for the period from April 2012
until March 5, 2024, during which she consistently worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, the suit asserts.
The unlawful conduct of the Defendants not only had a detrimental
impact on the Plaintiff, but also affected all other employees in a
similar employment situation. These employees, who experienced the
same unfair treatment, are also a part of this case and seek
justice for the violations they endured, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of
wage rates at the commencement of her employment in April 2012, and
at each subsequent change in her rate of pay. The Plaintiff further
seeks certification of this action as a collective action on her
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant
to the collective action provision of the FLSA.
Ms. Medley was employed by the Defendant, from April 2012 until
March 5, 2024, where her primary work duty was as a surgical dental
assistant.
Lawrence Goettisheim provides oral health care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
LONG ISLAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Says
------------------------------------------------------------
NIHAL ERKAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Long Island City Kleaners, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03170
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 29, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
"Licknyc.com" to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The lawsuit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to services Long Island City Kleaners provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website.
While looking for a nearby clothing store providing streetwear and
urban-style apparel, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website.
While exploring the website to learn more about their products and
physical location, she faced several accessibility issues. These
issues made it impossible for her to purchase a T-shirt, locate the
store's address, or find a phone number to contact them. However,
unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its
website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable
to independently navigate, browse and use Licknyc.com, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Long Island City Kleaners' policies, practices, and procedures to
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Long Island specializes in products such as T-shirts, hoodies,
sweatshirts, pants, sneakers, slip-ons, hats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Malibu
Boats, Inc. ("Malibu Boats" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MBUU). The
lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
information regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, including allegations that:
(1) Malibu Boats engaged in an "elaborate scheme to over
manufacture and pump nearly $100 million of its highest priced,
highest margin, slow moving boat inventory into fifteen [] Tommy's
dealerships";
(2) as a result, the Company artificially inflated its sales
performance, market share, and stock value;
(3) the Company was withholding certain incentives and
rebates from its dealers;
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company faced
substantial risk of litigation from one of its top dealers,
Tommy's; and
(5) Malibu Boat's CEO departed due to this role in this
scheme.
If you bought Malibu Boats shares between November 4, 2022 and
April 11, 2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/malibu-boats/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is June 28, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
MALIBU BOATS: Yoon Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEONGJAE YOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MALIBU BOATS, INC., JACK SPRINGER, BRUCE
BECKMAN, DAVID BLACK, and WAYNE WILSON, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03254 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff Yoon brings the class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Malibu Boats
securities between November 4, 2022 and April 11, 2024, inclusive.
Throughout the said period, the Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose to investors that, among other things, Malibu Boats is
engaged in an elaborate scheme to over manufacture and pump nearly
$100 million of its highest priced, highest margin, slow moving
boat inventory into fifteen Tommy's dealerships. Moreover,
Defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements during
the Class period resulted in Plaintiff and other members of the
Class purchasing the company's securities at artificially inflated
prices, thus causing the damages when the truth was revealed, says
the suit.
Headquartered in London, TN, Malibu Boats is a designer,
manufacturer, and marketer of recreational powerboats, including
performance sport, sterndrive, and outboard boats. The company's
common stock trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol MBUU.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
MICHIGAN: Settlement in Unemployment Benefits' Suit Gets Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) has received
preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a lawsuit by
workers who said the agency ordered them to pay back pandemic-era
jobless benefits before resolving a protest or appeal. The
settlement is a key step in the UIA's efforts to resolve issues
that arose during a national public health crisis and its continued
focus on transforming into a national model for fast, fair, and
fraud-free service.
UIA will seek Legislative approval of $55 million for a settlement
fund. A claims administrator will determine which workers would
qualify for payments. The Michigan Court of Claims approved the
preliminary settlement in Saunders v Unemployment Ins. Agency et
al. on April 25.
"This settlement agreement lets us focus staff and resources on
customer service and the reforms we are making at the Unemployment
Insurance Agency to benefit Michigan workers and employers alike,"
UIA Director Julia Dale said. "Throughout this legal process, the
parties worked cooperatively with each other and the court to
establish new processes and procedures so Michigan residents won't
find themselves in a similar situation in the future."
At issue are millions of dollars in benefits that were ordered to
be repaid before the UIA could determine whether a wave of protests
or appeals were filed on time or filed at all on a rush of claims
during the pandemic.
Under the settlement agreement, UIA will refrain from reinitiating
attempts to collect overpayments until protest or appeal rights
have been exhausted. The agency will also implement a process for
workers to seek waivers.
As part of the litigation process, the Court of Claims ordered the
UIA to stop most overpayment collections on claims after March 1,
2020, where a worker may have filed a protest or appeal. UIA agreed
to put in place remedial actions and reforms before the order
pausing collection activity is lifted. The Court will decide when
collections resume.
Under the agreement, UIA is not admitting to liability in the case.
Workers who join the settlement must agree to release all claims
against the UIA.
A commitment to helping workers
The settlement agreement is among a number of reforms implemented
by Director Dale -- the agency's 11th director in as many years --
to help workers apply for jobless benefits:
a. The UIA Claimant Roadmap is an easy-to-follow,
user-friendly six step guide to applying for and understanding your
benefits. You can find the roadmap at
Michigan.gov/UIAClaimantRoadmap.
b. First-time filer coaching sessions use online group
sessions to guide claimants through the steps needed to complete an
application and qualify for payments.
c. UIA's Advocacy Program has added new advocates and raised
their compensation by 30 percent. The Advocacy Program provides
free legal advice to workers and employers who appeal UIA
determinations.
d. Planning and design are under way to replace the decade-old
MiWAM computer system used by workers to apply for benefits and
employers to pay unemployment insurance taxes. The new computer
system will be easy to use, speed claims processing, and build on
the agency's aggressive anti-fraud tactics. It is expected to be
fully operational in 2025.
e. The number of days available to schedule appointments has
been extended to 14 days in advance.
f. UIA staff are located in 10 regions across Michigan as part
of the UIA Community Connect program to provide hands-on expertise
to employers and workers about the unemployment insurance
application process. Liaisons also connect workers and employers to
UIA's outreach and education resources.
g. A revamped public website at Michigan.gov/UIA that is
user-friendly and responsive for those accessing services using
cell phones or tablets.
Tools that benefit employers, fight fraud
Since being named to lead the UIA in October 2021, Director Dale
has launched other significant resources to help employers navigate
unemployment insurance and that bolster the agency's fight against
fraud:
a. Developing the innovative Employer Help Center, which can
be found at Michigan.gov/UIAEmployerHelpCenter. The plain language
Help Center provides answers to employers on unemployment tax and
claim issues and UIA programs.
b. Naming a Legal Advisor and creating the Legal and
Compliance Bureau to leverage collaborative anti-fraud practices to
pursue bad actors, in collaboration with the Michigan Attorney
General's office, and local, state and federal law enforcement. To
date, 162 people have been charged, 91 convicted, and 71
sentenced.
c. Creating the UIA Modernization Workgroup, consisting of
labor, business and jobless advocates to advise the UIA on
significant improvements in how it can better serve Michigan
workers and employers.
d. Scoring 100 percent for the third year in a row from the
U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) on employer audits, meeting the
department's reasonable assurance of quality benchmark, in 2022,
2021, and 2020.
e. Rebuilding to more than $2.3 billion (and growing) the UI
Trust Fund, from which weekly benefits are paid to workers.
f. Winning six national awards since 2017 for anti-fraud
efforts from the U.S. DOL.
Implementing new ethics and security clearance policies for
employees and contractors.
g. Renovations at five Local Offices -- Sterling Heights,
Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Lansing and Detroit -- to improve the user
experience for claimants who want to speak directly with an agent.
h. Reassigning staff and resources to address the largest
categories of claims that are contributing to the agency's case
backlogs. [GN]
MICHIGAN: Settles Class Suit Over Unemployment Benefits for $55MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Nissen of Fox 2 Detroit reports that The Michigan Unemployment
Insurance Agency (UIA) tasked with distributing jobless benefits to
unemployed workers in Michigan has settled a class action lawsuit
against the department after it clawed back millions in funds that
may have been improperly distributed.
The agreement includes a $55 million settlement that will be
distributed to workers who qualify, which will be determined by a
claims administrator.
Those who are eligible would have had their funds collected by the
Unemployment Insurance Agency without going through the proper
process. It includes people who had funds taken from them after
March 1, 2020 through April 2024.
The massive settlement fund was created to help resolve a class
action suit against the UIA after it tried collecting repayments it
mistakenly paid out during the pandemic when millions of workers
were forced out of a job during the public health crisis.
An audit determined the agency potentially issued almost $250
million in improper payments to dead people or those who were
incarcerated. It was among several issues the Office of Auditor
General found while reviewing the claims process used by the UIA.
"This settlement agreement lets us focus staff and resources on
customer service and the reforms we are making at the Unemployment
Insurance Agency to benefit Michigan workers and employers alike,"
UIA Director Julia Dale said. "Throughout this legal process, the
parties worked cooperatively with each other and the court to
establish new processes and procedures so Michigan residents
won’t find themselves in a similar situation in the future."
Before it can distribute the $55 million, the UIA will need
legislative approval.
Under the settlement, the UIA also would not resume collecting
improperly-distributed overpayments until after a court says so.
The agency will not admit any wrongdoing or liability in the case
as part of the agreement.[GN]
MIRACLE MOO: Mosseri Sues Over Colostrum Supplements' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Mosseri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Miracle Moo, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03414 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 2, 2024) alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive,
unfair, and misleading acts and practices by conspicuously
representing on the marketing of the "Miracle Moo" bovine colostrum
dietary supplements that they possess "scientific validation," are
"powered by science," and are "clinically dosed."
Colostrum is a nutrient-rich pre-milk produced by mothers
immediately after giving birth. This pre-milk is packed with
immune-boosting ingredients that are vital for newborns, rightfully
earning its moniker "liquid gold."
The Defendant primarily sells the Products through its own website
and on Amazon.com for the exorbitant price of $39.99 for a
one-month supply or $59.99 for a two-month supply. Throughout its
pervasive advertising campaign, the Defendant allegedly uses a
common fraudulent scheme that deceives consumers into believing
that the Products have "scientific validation," are "powered by
science," and are "clinically dosed" to "enhance immunity,"
"fortify the gut," "leaky gut repair," "fortify immunity," "curb
infections," "[eliminate] bloat," "repair intestinal lining and
ease digestive discomfort," "fight inflammation," "[induce] hair
growth," "[enhance] muscle recovery," "[eliminate] muscle pain," "
"[induce] sleep + calmness," and "achieve mental clarity."
Furthermore, the Products are misbranded and unapproved "new drugs"
that are illegal to sell under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
("FDCA") and New York's Agriculture and Marketing law, which
incorporates the FDCA by reference. By using this deceitful scheme,
the Defendant creates a false aura of scientific and pharmaceutical
legitimacy to sell the Products at a premium price—violating New
York law at least in two ways.
First, Defendant' Products do not, in fact, contain any "scientific
validation" nor are they "clinically dosed"—these purported
"validation" and clinical studies are nowhere to be found, not even
on the Defendant's website. In fact, as discussed infra, the
existing body of scientific literature indicates that none of
Defendant's purported health benefits have been scientifically
proven.
Second, the Defendant markets the Products by making an array of
improper disease claims without mandated disclaimers next to its
marketing statements in violation of the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") regulations. As such, the Products are
considered unapproved and misbranded "new drugs" under the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") which are illegal to sell and
worthless.
As a result of its deceptive conduct, the Defendant is, and
continues to be, unjustly enriched at the expense of its customers,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Products for his personal
use on March of 2024.
The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells its
"Miracle Moo" bovine colostrum dietary supplements throughout the
United States, including in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, Suite 4667
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
MPE PARTNERS: Seeks to Vacate Class Certification Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Walther, Trent
Kumfer, and Jayme Lea, Megan Kelsey, Dave Lowe, Carol Whisler, and
Michele Porter, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the 80/20, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, v. John Wood, Brian Eagle, Patrick Buesching, Patrice Mauk,
Rodney Strack, MPE Partners II, L.P., MPE Partners III, L.P. and
Pareto Efficient Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC
(N.D. Ind.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting their Rule 16 motion to vacate class certification
deadline.
On Sept. 14, 2023, the Parties filed a Report of Parties' Planning
Meeting proposing various deadlines for this case. Among those
deadlines, the parties proposed June 7, 2024, as the deadline for
class certification motions.
On Sept. 19, 2023, the Court adopted the dates proposed by the
parties and accepted June 7, 2024, as the deadline for class
certification.
On April 24, 2024, the Defendants filed a Rule 26(c) Motion for
Protective Order and To Stay Proceedings while their motions to
dismiss are pending.
MPE focuses on lower middle market leveraged buyouts,
recapitalizations, and build up investments.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SBrMcE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip J. Gutwein II, Esq.
Emily A. Kile-Maxwell, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 237-0300
Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
E-mail: philip.gutwein@faegredrinker.com
emily.kilemaxwell@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Guenther Karl Fanter, Esq.
Ann M. Caresani, Esq.
Mary Pat Brogan, Esq.
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
E-mail: kfanter@bakerlaw.com
mbrogan@bakerlaw.com
acaresani@bakerlaw.com
bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
MULTIPLAN CORP: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that MultiPlan, a healthcare services
company, is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by Allegiance
Health Management, a Louisiana-based health care system, accusing
it and other major insurers of collusion, Fierce Healthcare
reports. The suit alleges that MultiPlan and several major payers,
including Aetna Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., and Humana Inc.,
engaged in collusive and anticompetitive practices, causing
"massive economic losses" for providers. [GN]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ponders Settlement of Massive NIL Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio of NBC Sports reports that the National Collegiate
Athletics Association (NCAA) has a problem. And it's trying to
solve it.
Via ESPN.com, the leaders of college sports are in "deep
discussions" to resolve a massive NIL antritrust lawsuit. The case,
which attacks any and all restrictions on the ability of athletes
to earn money for their name, image, and likeness, is set to go to
trial in January 2025.
A recent gathering of key figures for college football playoff
meetings reportedly sparked an effort to discuss a way out of the
multi-billion-dollar maze in which college sports find themselves.
The class action has two key pieces. There's an effort to recover
financial compensation for past violations, and there's a request
for a court order preventing the NCAA and the member schools from
applying restrictions in the future. The going-forward aspect of
the case could leverage some sort of revenue sharing for players.
Something needs to happen. The NCAA is and has been in checkmate.
The only thing left to determine is when and how the NCAA will make
things right for what has happened in the past, and for what needs
to happen in the future.
It won't be easy. Ultimately, a Super League might be the only way
to address all issues in a satisfactory way.
Regardless, this is the reckoning the NCAA has deserved for
decades. The schools, hiding under their convenient, four-letter
umbrella, have exploited athletes, getting more from them than the
players ever get. If the solution messy or ugly or clunky or
expensive (it will be that), it's not the fault of those who were
victimized by a system that has made billions in exchange for the
actual, not-marked-up-like-jewelry cost of giving players a college
education, regardless of whether they want one. [GN]
NATURELO PREMIUM: Settles False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Naturelo agreed to pay $1.5 million
to resolve claims its magnesium supplements did not contain as much
bioavailable magnesium as advertised on the supplement label.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Naturelo's
magnesium glycinate chelate 200-milligram supplements between Sept.
1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2024.
According to the false advertising class action lawsuit, Naturelo's
supplement capsules are not large enough to contain 200 milligrams
of high-quality magnesium glycinate chelate -- a bioavailable form
of magnesium the body absorbs. The plaintiffs in the case argue
that, instead of this higher-quality form of magnesium, Naturelo
uses lower-quality forms of magnesium, such as magnesium oxide.
Naturelo is a supplement brand that aims to provide clean
supplements to consumers.
Naturelo hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $1.5
million settlement to resolve the false advertising class action
lawsuit.
Under the settlement terms, class members can receive up to $24.95
for one purchased unit without proof of purchase. Class members who
can provide proof of purchase can receive up to $24.95 per each
purchased product with no payment cap.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 28, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
13, 2024.
To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 28, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Naturelo's Magnesium Glycinate Chelate
200-milligram supplements between Sept. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2024
Potential Award
$24.95 (without proof of purchase)
Proof of Purchase
Amazon order ID, sales receipt, order confirmation email or other
documentation showing the date and location of the purchase, the
name of the purchased product and the amount paid.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
05/28/2024
Case Name
Wallin v. Naturelo Premium Supplements LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-05960-GC-DEA, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey
Final Hearing
08/13/2024
Settlement Website
MagnesiumSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Wallin v. Naturelo Premium Supplements LLC
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
833-425-9191
Class Counsel
LEMBERG LAW LLC
188 Grand St 2nd floor
New York, NY 10013
Defense Counsel
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
3 World Trade Center
175 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 808-7800 [GN]
NEW SOUTH WALES: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $229.8MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that NSW
Health has agreed to pay $229.8m to settle a class action lawsuit
alleging that junior doctors were underpaid for overtime and other
entitlements.
This settlement marks the largest underpayment class action
resolution in Australian legal history, according to the
plaintiffs' lawyers.
The lawsuit, representing over 20,000 junior doctors across NSW,
was initiated to address claims that the health system failed to
compensate doctors for hours worked adequately. The class action
covers December 2014 to March of the current year.
Dr. Amireh Fakhouri, the lead plaintiff and a former junior doctor
at NSW Health from 2015 to 2018, emphasised that the lawsuit was
about recognition of work rather than financial gain.
"Our purpose in bringing this was to ensure junior doctors' work
was properly recognised. This was not about us asking for more
money; it was simply about us being paid for the actual hours that
we work," Fakhouri said.
She also highlighted a budding cultural shift within the healthcare
system, encouraging junior doctors to accurately record their
working hours.
The settlement announcement was accompanied by remarks from
representatives of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and Hayden Stephens &
Associates, the law firms representing the junior doctors. Rebecca
Gilsenan, a principal at Maurice Blackburn, called the settlement
"a landmark" achievement, noting that it represents a significant
step towards systemic change within NSW hospitals.
According to Gilsenan, NSW Health has already begun implementing
improvements that underscore this change.
Hayden Stephens, representing the legal interests of junior
doctors, pointed out the chronic issues of unrecorded overtime and
dangerous working conditions that prompted the class action. He
lauded Dr. Fakhouri for her courage in leading the charge against a
culture of silence that often plagues hierarchical workplaces like
hospitals.
The legal settlement is subject to final approval by the NSW
Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled for later this year.
Pending court approval, a process will be established to assess
claims from current and former junior doctors eligible to
participate in the settlement. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Teagle Plaintiffs Must File Supplemental Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle, et al., v. The
City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07211 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Dec. 23, 2019), the Hon. Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry entered an
order directing the Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing, with
appropriate citations to legal authority and the
previously-submitted record evidence filed in support of
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, illustrating how
Plaintiffs have established, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that they have standing to seek injunctive relief based on "a
material risk of future harm," which is "sufficiently imminent and
substantial" to justify "forward-looking, injunctive relief."
-- The Defendants are directed to file May 5, 2024
a response by:
-- The Plaintiffs may reply by: June 12, 2024
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.]
NISSAN CANADA: Settles Data Incident Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that a proposed settlement has been reached
in two authorized/certified class action lawsuits, the first which
was instituted against Nissan Canada Inc., Nissan Canada Financial
Services Inc./Services Financier Nissan Canada Inc. and Nissan
North America, Inc. ("Nissan") in Ontario and the second which was
instituted against Nissan Canada Inc. in Quebec
The lawsuits allege that Nissan is liable for damages resulting
from an incident in which it received an anonymous email from an
unknown individual claiming to have information about Nissan
customers, and demanding a ransom be paid to return the data (the
"Data Incident"). Nissan denies any wrongdoing, and none of the
allegations of the lawsuit have been proven. The parties have
instead decided to settle the lawsuit.
Class members include:
(i) residents in Quebec who had active leases or loans with
Nissan between December 22, 2016 and January 12, 2017;
(ii) residents in Quebec who received a letter from Nissan in
January 2018 informing them of the Data Incident; and
(iii) residents in the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec) who had
active leases or loans with Nissan between from December 22, 2016
and January 12, 2017.
Nissan has agreed to provide a fund of CAD $1,820,000.00 to settle
the lawsuit.
APPROVAL HEARING: The proposed Settlement must be approved by the
Courts in both Quebec and Ontario to become effective. The
settlement was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
April 24, 2024. The approval hearing before the Superior Court of
Quebec will take place on June 6, 2024.
If the settlement is approved, class members who have suffered
damages, losses, costs and/or unreimbursed expenses caused by the
Data Incident (and/or, for Quebec residents, as a result of the
receipt of a letter from Nissan in January 2018 informing them of
the Data Incident) would be eligible for the reimbursement of such
damages up to CAD $2,500. Class members who do not have
documentation or proof of damages and who submit a claim would be
entitled to CAD $35 for reimbursement of lost time.
This is just a summary. For more detailed information regarding the
objection process, and to view the Settlement Agreement,
Court-approved notices, and other documents, please visit the
settlement website www.nissandatasettlement.com. [GN]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Plaintiffs Seek Prelim Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Elverd, writing for The Herald Star, reports that
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
against Norfolk Southern filed a motion asking the Ohio District
Northern District Court to grant preliminary approval of the $600
million principal settlement that was announced earlier this month.
Despite what the motion called a belief that "the claims asserted
against Norfolk Southern in this case have merit" and that
plaintiffs would "ultimately be successful in prevailing on the
merits at trial," the length of time it would take for the case to
play out in court, coupled with the expense of that litigation and
the uncertainty of how it would end led the plaintiffs to seek a
settlement.
"The settlement agreement between Norfolk Southern and Plaintiffs
will provide relief now, as opposed to years, or even decades, down
the road," the motion read. "Recognizing that further litigation
would be risky, burdensome, and expensive, plaintiffs and Norfolk
Southern agree that it is desirable and beneficial that the case is
settled."
The motion said the agreement "provides substantial recovery" for
the East Palestine community and surrounding area, and "will
provide households, families and local businesses much-needed,
immediate relief for the losses, suffering, and inconvenience they
have endured since Feb. 3, 2023."
The motion and exhibits filed along with it revealed the proposed
timeline of the approval process, setting the final approval
hearing as Sept. 25.
The documents also revealed how much the plaintiffs’ lawyers
could receive from brokering the deal. Under the agreement, class
counsel agrees to "seek no more than 27 percent of the total
monetary recovery" and "costs and expenses up to 3 percent of the
fund." That means the attorneys stand to pocket $180 million --
$162 million in legal fees and $18 million in other expenses.
The filing also requested that Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
be appointed as the settlement administrator who "will determine
the allocation formula and fixed amounts" based on scored criteria
including geographic proximity, household size, number of children
in the household, relocation mandates, and length of displacement
with payments will be distributed based on the allocated points.
The motion clarified that only claims within the first 10 miles
will be scored. For plaintiffs 10 to 20 miles, only actual
displacement and extraordinary injuries will be considered.
Businesses are entitled to losses that can be proven through tax
returns or other documents. [GN]
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: President Faces Resignation Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonah Meadows of Patch reports that Northwestern University
President Michael Schill is facing demands for his resignation and
a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Jewish students over his
handling of a pro-Palestinian encampment and antisemitic incidents
on campus.
Schill issued a video message April 30, a day after his
administration negotiated an agreement with representatives of the
NU Divestment Coalition to remove all but one tent that protesters
had pitched on Deering Meadow five days earlier.
The university president said it is a difficult environment for all
colleges and university across the country but that it is vital to
try to find a path forward.
"I understand the hurt and the worry felt by so many in our
community," Schill said. "Jewish students are feeling threatened
and unsafe; Muslim and Palestinian students are feeling like their
voices need to be heard."
Schill said he was proud to have come to a "sustainable,
de-escalated" agreement with the demonstrators, describing it as
one that prioritizes safety for all students while providing room
for free expression within school policies.
"This agreement reduces the risk of escalation, which we have seen
at so many of our peer institutions," Schill said.
While many other demonstrations have resulted in mass arrests or
violence, the Northwestern agreement with demonstrators appears to
have been the first to end with a negotiated pact between
protesters and administrators.
A day after Northwestern, demonstrators at Brown University agreed
to dismantle their encampment after reaching an agreement that
called for an October vote by the Brown Corporation on whether to
divest from Israel.
Schill described how many of his aunts, uncles and cousins in
Nazi-occupied Poland were sent to camps. Several died, he said,
while the rest settled in Israel.
Antisemitism in universities, including Northwestern, is on the
rise May 2, Schill said.
"I recognize that some slogans and expressions are subject to
interpretation, but when I see a Star of David with an X on it,
when I see a picture of me with horns or when I hear that one of
our students has been called a 'dirty Jew,' there is no ambiguity,"
he said. "This needs to be condemned by all of us, and that starts
with me."
But, in a joint statement, a trio of groups organized to oppose
antisemitism called for Schill's resignation over the agreement
with protesters, declaring that he is unfit to lead the
university.
Representatives of the Midwest Anti-Defamation League, StandWithUs
and The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law said on
Tuesday that Schill had rewarded the demonstrators "for their hate"
by giving them a seat at the table.
"Their goal was not to find peace, but to make Jewish students feel
unsafe on campus. Rather than hold them accountable -- as he
pledged he would -- President Schill gave them a seat at the table
and normalized their hatred against Jewish students," the statement
said.
"President Schill capitulated to hatred and bigotry and empowered
and emboldened those who have used intimidation, harassment, and
violence to achieve their ends," it continued. "Instead of issuing
fines and suspensions in accordance with university policies, he
awarded protest groups with scholarships, professorships, and a
renovated community home."
Jewish Students File Lawsuit
The next day, a class action complaint against the university was
filed on behalf of a trio of Jewish students. Using the names John
and Jane Doe, the two graduate students and one undergraduate all
now have concerns about their safety on the private school's
Evanston campus.
One of the anonymous plaintiffs described walking with a friend
near the encampment on its first day when a masked female
demonstrator struck her friend with a protest sign and walked away.
She was also told to "burn in hell" and followed from an area near
the encampment, according to the suit.
The other graduate student plaintiff said a protester physically
harassed one of his friends near the encampment over the weekend.
One of the demonstrators later published his picture in a
derogatory manner, the complaint alleges.
And the undergraduate student, who said he had previously been told
that "Jewish students 'should go back to Europe, to Poland,'"
according to the suit, heard hateful expressions while walking near
the encampment over the weekend. He is now more concerned about his
safety after learning about the administration's "appeasement" of
the protesters.
The one-count complaint alleges a breach of contract between
university officials and all Jewish students enrolled at the
Evanston campus for the 2023-24 academic school year who did not
take part in the encampment themselves.
Attorneys for the anonymous trio asked a judge to certify the class
action, declare that university officials violated the contract,
require Northwestern to comply with its policies and award
compensation to Jewish students and their attorneys.
Committee Members Resign
Also on Wednesday, May 1st, seven of the 16 members of Schill's
advisory committee on preventing antisemitism and hate stepped
down. In a letter obtained by The Daily Northwestern, they cited
the university president's failure to consult the committee that he
established last November.
According to student paper, those that stepped down include a
committee co-chair, professor Efraim Benmelech, university trustee
Paula Pretlow, undergraduate senior Lily Cohen, professors Martin
Eichenbaum, Daniel Green and Philip Greenland, as well as Michael
Simon, the executive director of university's chapter of the Jewish
campus organization Hillel.
"It is essential that the University develop appropriate and timely
recommendations to address and prevent antisemitism and hate," they
wrote. "However, in light of the University leadership’s decision
not to utilize the committee for its stated purpose, we can no
longer continue to serve in this role." [GN]
OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Faces Walter Data Breach Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
MARK WALTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00444 (W.D.N.C., May 3, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure protect highly sensitive data of its current and former
employees and/or patients and asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.
On April 17, 2024, the Defendant detected suspicious activity on
its network. Moreover, the Defendant failed its duties when its
inadequate security practices caused the data breach. As a result,
Plaintiff and Class members suffered -- and will continue to suffer
-- damages that include monetary losses, lost time, anxiety, and
emotional distress, says the suit.
Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, Octapharma Plasma, Inc. collects,
tests and supplies human blood plasma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Flr.
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
ON THE MARK: Perez Seeks to Recover Utility Locators' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD PEREZ, individually and for all others similarly situated v.
ON THE MARK UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-02908
(S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2024) is a class and collective action seeking
to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
According to the complaint, OTM employed Perez as one of its hourly
utility locators in New York. Plaintiff Perez and the other hourly
utility locators regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But OTM
does not pay Perez and its other Utility Locators for all their
hours worked. Instead, OTM requires Perez and its other hourly
utility locators to work significant time "off the clock" without
pay. Specifically, OTM prohibits Perez and its other hourly utility
locators from "clocking in" for their shifts until they arrive at
their first assigned ticket and requires them to "clock out" when
they leave their last assigned ticket, says the suit.
OTM's uniform "ticket to ticket" policy violates the federal and
state laws and its implementing regulations by depriving Perez and
the other hourly utility locators of overtime wages for all
overtime hours worked, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff Perez worked for the Defendant as a utility locator in
and around Rockland County, New York from approximately October
2019 through October 2021.
On The Mark Utility Locating Services, Inc. provides utility
management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
OREGON: Court Dismisses Former Governor From COVID Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Wilson of OPB News reports that former Oregon Gov. Kate
Brown can't be held liable for the state's response to the COVID-19
pandemic across its prisons, according to a ruling by a federal
magistrate.
But in the same ruling, the judge allowed a large class-action
lawsuit with costly implications for the state to move forward.
The litigation, first filed in April 2020, covers some 5,000 people
who were in custody at one of the state's prisons and contracted
COVID-19. A separate wrongful death class covers the estates of 45
others who were in prison at the time they died from the disease.
The lawsuit alleges Brown and the staff at the Department of
Corrections subjected the adults in Oregon's prisons to cruel and
unusual punishment because the state failed to protect them from
greater exposure to COVID-19.
Last year, Brown was ordered to sit for a deposition in the case.
Not only did that never happen, but the ruling means it won't.
Attorneys for the sickened prisoners also allege the agency failed
to enforce a mask mandate and provide testing to those in prison
who were exposed to COVID or had symptoms. The inmates have also
alleged the corrections department didn't screen its employees for
exposure to the virus before going to work at prisons during the
pandemic.
Part of the case centers around clemency, a power granted to the
governor to change a convicted person's sentence. During the
pandemic, Brown used the authority to release thousands of people
early from prison, reducing the population in hopes of creating
more social distance.
In April 2020, prison leaders told the governor they would need to
release an estimated 5,800 adults across the state's prison system
in order to give those who remained in custody the recommended six
feet of separation.
Brown never pursued any of the release scenarios prison leaders
drew up for her. But attorneys representing the prisoners said it
proved Brown knew how many people would need to be released -- and
she didn't do it.
Rather, they note, Brown decided she would not consider early
releases for people convicted of crimes against another person.
That meant most of the state's prisoners weren't eligible.
Plaintiffs argue this decision showed Brown was deliberately
indifferent to the health of prisoners during the pandemic.
"In other words, Governor Brown knew of the importance of social
distancing, knew ODOC's forecast about the necessary release
numbers, and yet chose to limit clemency in a manner that would
never achieve adequate social distancing," U.S. Magistrate Judge
Stacie Beckerman wrote in a 150-page ruling.
But Beckerman ultimately rejected that argument. Instead, she ruled
to dismiss Brown from the case. The ruling expands the immunity of
the governor's office from future litigation over clemency
decisions.
"Without question, Oregon's governor authoritatively determines
whether to grant clemency," Beckerman wrote. "Further, in light of
the liberty interest at stake, it is important for the governor to
perform the function of adjudicating clemency applications without
harassment or intimidation."
Yet Beckerman's ruling was also a setback for the state, which had
hoped to dismiss the case.
The Oregon Department of Justice, which is defending the state, has
hired the Portland-based law firm Markowitz Herbold, the agency's
go-to outside counsel when it comes to major cases.
Beckerman wrote "material issues of fact remain" such as whether
prison staff implemented their own pandemic policies and took steps
to slow the spread of the virus and the risks to those in custody.
She noted that the prison system sought to avoid external audits,
citing how the agency's Health Services Assistant Director Joe
Bugher, one of the named defendants in the lawsuit, responded to a
request from Oregon Health Authority during a COVID outbreak at the
Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem.
"Bugher stated that 'OHA wants to audit OSP [because] of the
outbreak' and 'their audits are publicly shared info' and that he
is 'trying to keep [OHA] out of our world'," Beckerman wrote,
referencing earlier court filings. Bugher said the corrections
department should "avoid 'being told by OHA how to run our
business.'"
The state has appealed Beckerman's rulings to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to schedule arguments
for sometime later this year or next. [GN]
OREGON: Subpoenas Senator’s Emails Before Testifying in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Botkin, writing for Oregon Capital Chronicle, reports that
Oregon Department of Human Services attorneys have subpoenaed nine
years of state Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin's correspondence with
hundreds of people, including foster children, lawyers, journalists
and even celebrity Paris Hilton.
The agency's vast subpoena surfaced last week in the federal
class-action lawsuit filed against the Oregon Department of Human
Services on behalf of Oregon foster children in 2019 by Disability
Rights Oregon and A Better Childhood, a national advocacy
organization. The lawsuit alleges the state has failed children in
the foster care system in myriad ways, such as placement of
children in hotels and other inadequate, abusive or unsafe
settings. If successful, the lawsuit would force the state to make
systemic policy changes in how it takes care of foster children.
Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, is set to testify on behalf of the
plaintiffs as a witness in the case, which is scheduled to go to
trial in Eugene in two weeks. For years, Gelser Blouin, chair of
the Senate Human Services Committee, has been a longtime advocate
for vulnerable children and has frequently proposed and championed
legislation to force the state's foster care and child welfare
systems to improve their care.
"I think it's shocking for lawyers for a state government agency to
target a sitting state legislator in this way and try and
intimidate her from testifying," said Tom Stenson, deputy legal
director for Disability Rights Oregon.
A spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Human Services didn't
immediately respond to a request for comment.
The state has spent years haggling over what documents plaintiffs
can access and trying to get the case thrown out at a cost to
Oregon taxpayers of $18 million as of February. And in its latest
move: On April 24, the state's private attorneys in the case
subpoenaed Gelser Blouin for what's likely to be thousands of pages
of her correspondence, including emails and texts, dating to
January 2015.
The request has asked for correspondence with current and former
foster children, advocates, attorneys for the plaintiffs, their
paralegals and support staff and others, such as court-appointed
special advocates for children, physicians and social workers. The
Oregon Department of Human Services also wants to see her
communications with reporters for Oregon Public Broadcasting and
The Oregonian/OregonLive which have written extensively about
problems in the foster care system. The news organizations did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on the subpoena by
mid-day, April 30, 2024.
The subpoena also requested Gelser Blouin's communications with
Paris Hilton, a well-known celebrity and national advocate for
children's issues.
In an interview, Gelser Blouin said she doesn't believe the records
contain surprises for the agency because she passes any concerns
she gets to the state child welfare.
As for Paris Hilton, Gelser Blouin said she's visited with her
about policy and has met with her while on trips to Washington,
D.C. But Gelser Blouin said the lawsuit isn't something that has
ever come up. Gelser Blouin praised Hilton's advocacy on issues
like appropriate care for children in congregant facilities.
In 2021, Hilton testified in support of a bill to regulate child
restraints before Gelser Blouin's Senate Human Services Committee
and shared her experiences of physical and emotional abuse while
living in youth residential facilities as a teenager. In her
account, Hilton spoke about how she was handcuffed and taken to a
facility.
"Paris and I have spent a lot of time talking about policy in
general -- not necessarily Oregon policies," Gelser Blouin said.
"I've never talked about this case with her."
'Try and distract people'
Stenson, with Disability Rights Oregon, said the agency's pursuit
of emails with Paris Hilton are a sign that DHS has nothing to show
the public that points to progress with the foster care system.
"If DHS had real successes, like real tangible successes, to point
to, they'd be talking about all their successes," he said. "When
you don't have a good case, you try and distract people. You try
and throw out these other stories. You try and make it about
whether Senator Gelser Blouin is emailing Paris Hilton."
Gelser Blouin said she'll comply with all legally appropriate
requests for records and is searching for a private attorney to
help her respond to the subpoena.
"Meanwhile, my office is searching for potentially responsive
records spanning dozens of individuals, children, attorneys, media
outlets and other entities over the past nine years so that I am
ready to comply with any parts of the subpoena the court deems
should move forward," Gelser Blouin said in a statement. She said
the lawyers also sent her office a separate public records request,
which will also be processed.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to quash the subpoena, calling
it a last-minute attempt to harass a witness and not a legitimate
attempt to get evidence.
"It's just a big fishing expedition to try and embarrass the
senator to try and make it hard for her and to shift the narrative
this case away from 'Are kids safe? Are kids getting the services
they need? Are they finding safe places to live?'" Stenson said.
A judge has not yet ruled on the motion.
If the subpoena is successful, everything will be due by 9 a.m. May
10, slightly more than two weeks after Gelser Blouin received the
subpoena. At that time, Gelser Blouin is ordered to produce the
records at the Portland office of Markowitz Herbold, the private
law firm representing the state. That's also just three days before
the trial starts. [GN]
OVEN ARTISANS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Zeida Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RATAMENEGRE ZEIDA, individually and on behalf others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OVEN ARTISANS LLC and KEITH COHEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03451 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the overtime provision of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and several provisions of the New York Labor
Law as well as asserts claims for unlawful retaliation.
The Plaintiff commenced work as a laborer in Defendants' bakery in
November 2018. He frequently worked much longer than his assigned
work schedule to accommodate the needs of the bakery. However,
Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at time and a half for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants
allegedly manipulated the time tracking software to that it would
only show an 84-workday and a 40-hour work week. In addition,
within one week of Plaintiff making his final complaint to
management concerning overtime pay violations, Defendants
terminated Plaintiff in December 2022, says the suit.
Based in Bronx, NY, Oven Artisans LLC is a domestic limited
liability corporation that owns and operates bakeries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com
PAYCOR INC: Loses Bid for Continued Stay of Johns Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIN JOHNS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and JUAN BARRON, v.
PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge David Dugan entered an order denying Defendant's motion for
continued stay.
On Oct. 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action
complaint, alleging violations of the Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA"). The Plaintiffs were employees of Club Fitness, Inc.,
who worked at various of its fitness centers in the St. Louis Metro
east region.
The proposed class includes
"[a]ll individuals working in the State of Illinois who had
their
fingerprints, hand geometry, or other biometric data
collected,
captured, received, or otherwise obtained or disclosed by the
Defendant during the applicable statutory period."
The Defendant designs and manufactures "Biometric Time Clocks,"
utilized by Club Fitness, Inc., "that require scans of users'
biometric data in order for those users to clock in and out of
work."
Paycor operates as a software company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gZy3UG at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PPH Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the PPH securities
class suit dismissal is pending before the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.
On October 4, 2022, a putative securities class action captioned
Defined Benefit Plan of the Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and
Teamsters Local 701 Pension and Annuity Fund v. PayPal Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-5864, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
On January 11, 2023, the Court appointed Caisse de dépôt et
placement du Québec as lead plaintiff and renamed the action In re
PayPal Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation ("PPH Securities
Action").
On March 13, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended and
consolidated complaint.
The PPH Securities Action asserts claims relating to our public
statements with respect to net new active accounts ("NNA") results
and guidance, and the detection of illegitimately created accounts.
The PPH Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock between February 3, 2021 and
February 1, 2022 (the "Class Period"), and asserts claims for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act against
the Company, as well as its former Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Strategy, Growth and Data Officer, and former Chief Financial
Officer (collectively, the "Individual Defendants," and together
with the Company, "Defendants"), and for alleged violations of
Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.
The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by
Defendants during the Class Period were rendered materially false
and misleading (which, allegedly, caused the Company's stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices) by the Defendants' failure
to disclose that, among other things, the Company's incentive
campaigns were susceptible to fraud and led to the creation of
illegitimate accounts, which allegedly affected the Company's NNA
results and guidance.
The PPH Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages on
behalf of the putative class members.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the PPH Securities
Action, which is fully briefed and pending before the court.
Paypal Holdings, Inc. operates a technology platform that enables
digital payments on behalf of merchants and consumers
worldwide.[BN]
PAYPAL INC: Furdock Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FURDOCK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL INC., Defendant, Case No.
24-001721-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., April 17,
2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent
to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time
zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of
Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As
such, by and through each of the electronic communications, the
Defendant violated FCCPA.
PayPal Inc. provides financial transaction processing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq .
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
PIRCH INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Popescu, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that former employees of Pirch, the high-end kitchen furnishing
store that filed for bankruptcy last month, have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the retailer.
In the lawsuit, filed May 1, former Pirch worker Liza Rogers and
others in the class allege that Pirch failed to follow state and
federal laws when it laid them off abruptly.
Pirch did not respond to a request for comment.
The class has not been certified yet.
Specifically, employees say Pirch failed to follow the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.
They are suing for 60 days' pay and benefits, and attorneys' fees.
"The Defendant violated the WARN Acts by failing to give the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of the Defendant
at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as
required by the WARN Act," the lawsuit states.
The complaint also says that Rogers and about 150 other employees
were terminated on or around April 9 as part of a mass layoff.
Pirch could also be liable for a civil penalty of up to $500 a day
for each day it violates California labor code, the complaint
states.
On April 19, Pirch filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
In the bankruptcy filing, Pirch stated that its liabilities far
surpass its assets, which implies that not all creditors will be
repaid, and some or all will not receive the entirety of what is
allegedly owed.
According to the lawsuit, in a WARN Act claim, each class member
gets priority for the first $15,150 of what is owed under U.S.
bankruptcy code. Amounts owed beyond that are considered lower
priority.
Rogers, in an email interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune,
shared how she was impacted by the abruptness of the layoff.
"This lay off was unexpected, and had we all known about it sooner
and given our 60 days notice via the WARN NOTICE, it would
definitely be more palatable," Rogers wrote. "Because there was no
time to find other employment, it's a huge amount of stress, to say
the least."
She said she has had to tap savings, incurring penalties.
The sudden job change has left her asking difficult questions, she
added.
"Do I work for myself? Do I find another employer? Do I sell my
house and move out of this state or country?" she wrote.
This is the latest of multiple lawsuits that have been filed
against the luxury furniture and bath appliance retailer.
Customers have also asked for criminal inquiries into the company,
and Rogers filed a complaint with the state regarding the alleged
WARN Act violation.
In late March, Pirch closed the doors to all of its retail
locations, giving the public -- and stakeholders such as customers,
merchants and landlords -- no explanation.
Since then, it has filed several WARN notices: one round in early
April and a second round that was processed April 30 for Pirch
locations in San Diego, Los Angeles and Riverside counties.
Before it closed, Pirch had stores throughout Southern California,
and was planning on opening a showroom in Santa Monica. [GN]
PLAINS ALL: Oil Spill Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Nguyen, writing for keyt.com, reports that U.S. District
Court Judge Philip Gutierrez granted preliminary approval for
property owners to earn $70 million from an oil spill via Plains
All American Pipeline in 2015 on May 1.
The spill happened on Refugio State Beach and into the Pacific
Ocean and the settlement will grant 183 class property owners at
least $50,000, with an average of $230,000.
Pipeline maintenance from 1991 was not upheld by Plains All
American Pipeline after taking over from its predecessor and caused
the spill and the significant damage along the coastline.
The current pipeline will not be replaced by the current owner
Sable Offshore Corp., but safe operation and maintenance are
expected to restart the pipeline.
Class members will be mailed direct settlement notices and a
fairness hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13 and they will have 15
days before the hearing to file responses to the settlement
approval. [GN]
PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Action reports that Presbyterian Healthcare Services
agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
failed to protect patients from a 2019 data breach.
The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach
notification from Presbyterian Healthcare Services informing them
their information may have been compromised in a data breach
discovered in June 2019.
Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim hackers
stole their personal information and health data in a 2019 data
breach. According to the plaintiffs, Presbyterian Healthcare
Services could have prevented the data breach by implementing
reasonable cybersecurity measures.
Presbyterian Healthcare Services is a specialty health care
provider that serves infants, children and teens.
Presbyterian Healthcare Services hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but
agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class
action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$750 for ordinary data breach expenses, such as communication
charges, credit expenses, miscellaneous costs and up to three hours
of lost time compensated at a rate of $15 per hour. Class members
who experienced extraordinary, documented data breach expenses,
such as fraud or identity theft, can claim up to $5,000 in
reimbursement.
In addition to expense reimbursement, class members can receive a
year of free credit monitoring through Experian IdentityWorks,
according to the settlement terms. These services include
three-bureau monitoring and $1 million in reimbursement insurance.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was April 16, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement was scheduled for
April 23, 2024.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 16, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a data breach notification from
Presbyterian Healthcare Services informing them their information
may have been compromised in a data breach discovered in June 2019
Potential Award
$5,750
Proof of Purchase
Invoices, receipts, account statements, travel documentation and
credit reports
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
05/16/2024
Case Name
Martinez, et al. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Case No.
D-202-CV-2020-01578, in the Second Judicial District Court for
Bernalillo County, New Mexico
Final Hearing
04/23/2024
Settlement Website
PHSDataIncidentSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
PHS Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
P.O. Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
(833) 630-6292
Class Counsel
Gerard Stranch IV
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Lynn A Toops
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square
1400 N Pennsylvania St
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
David K Lietz
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Defense Counsel
Kenneth L Chernof
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street - The Hancock building
53rd Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 351-8050
Fax: (627) 226-9199 [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Strano Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENE STRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03195-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's misleading representations of its tampons
under the Tampax brand under the Cardboard, Pearl, and Radiant
sub-brands, asserting claims for unjust enrichment and for
violations of the New York General Business Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's labeling, "Free of
Dyes," is misleading because the said products contain titanium
dioxide, a synthetically prepared powder used as a white pigment.
The use of titanium dioxide serves the identical purpose of dyes
with respect to products' tampons and tampon components, says the
Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio, The Procter &
Gamble Company is a consumer goods company that manufactures and
sells several products including personal care products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Kate J. Stoia, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 W 93rd St, 16th Fl
New York NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: snam@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
James Chung, Esq.
CHUNG LAW FIRM P.C.
43-22 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid to Exclude Testimonies of Witnesses Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lynn Freeman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Progressive Direct
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-03798-DCC (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Donald Coggins, Jr. entered an order denying the Defendant's
motions to exclude declarations and reports and testimonies of
expert witnesses.
The Defendant's motion to exclude the reports and testimony of Todd
Caputo and Kirk Felix granted in granted in part and denied in part
as set out.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. Pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court certifies a class of plaintiffs
consisting of:
"All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Progressive Direct Insurance Company to a
South Carolina resident who, from Oct. 15, 2018 through the
date
an order granting class certification is entered, received
compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where
that
compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by
Mitchell
(i.e. Report Code= "COMP") and the actual cash value was
decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the
comparable
vehicles used to determine actual cash value."
The Court directs the parties to submit a Joint Notice Plan within
30 days. If they are unable to agree, the parties may submit
separate proposed Notice Plans for the Court's review within the
same 30 days.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached her insurance
policy by paying less than the actual cash value ("ACV") of her
totaled 2020 Chevrolet Equinox.
The Plaintiff purchased comprehensive and collision insurance
underwritten by Defendant
On May 11, 2021, the Plaintiff's covered vehicle was damaged in an
accident. The Defendant's adjuster concluded that it was an
"obvious total loss."
Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dZB62u at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Suit Assesses Payroll Rounding Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentons reports that a recent concern in the healthcare sector,
specifically hospitals, is a large class action wage hour claim in
the state of Washington, Bennett v. Providence Health & Services.
In this instance, a review of the order granting partial summary
judgment to plaintiffs shows that the case was based on what the
court determined to be "unlawful timeclock rounding" and "missed
second meal periods."
About the Case
The Court determined that Providence required employees to clock in
at the beginning of the shift, in/out for meal breaks, and clock
out at the end of their shift using the Kronos system. Providence
also gave "caregivers the ability to, and required caregivers to
edit their Kronos timecard to be sure that the Kronos accurately
records report hours worked."
As many hospitals and systems do, Providence used a rounding policy
to capture time for payroll. But the court determined, based on
expert witness testimony, that its rounding system "is not
neutral."
DOL Guidelines -- Rounding
While the case itself is decided on Washington state law in
relationship to wage hour, the court does look to the federal DOL
guidelines regarding rounding. The court, through the various
expert witness testimony, found that the rounding system
consistently, though not all the time, favored the employer and
that the rounding system was not neutral because it did not
"average out over a period of time" equally between the employer
and employee.
The system did favor the employer more frequently than the
employee. Approximately 40% of the rounding favored the employer
with the remaining benefitting the employee or was neutral.
The success of this claim would appear to indicate that employers
utilizing rounding as part of their practice should periodically
audit the rounding records to determine that over a period of time
the rounding benefits work out evenly or to the advantage of
employees. The ability to show good faith compliance, for example
through an annual review, would assist in the defense of any claim
where rounding is involved.
The second claim in the Providence case goes directly to Washington
law as "Washington places broad obligation on its employers to not
merely provide a duty-free, uninterrupted second meal break to
employees who work more than 10 hours in a shift but to promote the
right." The Court found that Providence did not advertise or
educate on the right to a second meal period and that second meal
periods were consistently unavailable to employees through the
process and as such, Providence had violated Washington law.
The Big Picture
With highly sophisticated payroll systems and automated processes,
it can be argued that the premise that made rounding acceptable is
fading. This will likely lead to stricter future enforcement.
Healthcare employers need to assess their wage hour processes and
practices in light of these changing expectations. [GN]
QUIZLET INC: Furdock Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FURDOCK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUIZLET, INC., Defendant, Case No.
24-001724-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., April 17,
2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent
to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time
zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of
Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As
such, by and through each of the electronic communications, the
Defendant violated FCCPA.
Quizlet, Inc. is a multi-national American company that provides
tools for studying and learning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq .
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
RADIOREFERENCE.COM LLC: Furdock Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FURDOCK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RADIOREFERENCE.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
24-001722-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., April 17,
2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent
to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time
zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of
Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As
such, by and through each of the electronic communications, the
Defendant violated FCCPA.
RADIOREFERENCE.COM, LLC is a radio communications data
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq .
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
REALPAGE INC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Hollins Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN HOLLINS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a LeasingDesk Screening, Case No.
1:23-cv-02247-MLB-LTW (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Linda Walker
entered an order:
-- All discovery must be completed by: July 3, 2024
-- Dispositive motions and any motion for Aug. 20, 2024
class certification are due:
RealPage provides property management software for the multifamily,
commercial, single-family, and vacation rental housing industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CVp3e9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Independence Realty Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the
Company's subsidiary RealPage Inc. continues to defend itself from
consolidated the Sherman Act class suits in various district courts
of the U.S.
Starting around November 2022, putative class action
representatives began filing complaints in various United States
District Courts across the country naming as defendants RealPage,
Inc. ("RealPage"), a seller of revenue management products, and
approximately 50 defendants who own and/or manage multifamily
residential rental housing, alleging that the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rent prices in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Some of the complaints, including one filed on November 14, 2022 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
named us as one of the defendants, and others did not.
On April 10, 2023, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings,
where plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint and
asserted affirmative defenses.
It denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend
against these claims vigorously.
RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas. [BN]
RELX PLC: Discloses Personal Info to Customers, Trama Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN TRAMA, MATTHEW HARTZ, RAFAEL ROBLES, and EVAN NELSON on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. RELX PLC, RELX GROUP PLC, RELX (HOLDINGS) LIMITED, RELX OVERSEAS
HOLDINGS LIMITED, RELX INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK HOLDINGS INC.,
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03174 (C.D. Cal., April 17,
2024) alleges that Defendants have built a billion-dollar business
that, among other things, collects, indexes, and sells the
personally identifiable information of millions of Americans,
disclosing that personally identifiable information to customers
through subscription-based services such as Nexis Diligence, Nexis
Diligence+, Public Records, and Accurint, in violation of the
California Right of Publicity Act and the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act.
According to the complaint, this blatant and unauthorized use of
personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and those who are
similarly situated includes, but is not limited to, full names,
addresses, phone numbers, occupations, employers, social media
accounts, and personal property. And the use of this information to
advertise Lexis Personal Records Products runs afoul of the
well-established right of privacy of at least the residents of
California and Illinois.
This case is about upholding the rights of the millions of
Americans whose personally identifiable information Defendants have
transformed into advertisements and whose privacy they have
disregarded, all to turn a profit, says the suit.
RELX PLC provides publishing and information services which
incorporated in England and Wales with its principal place of
business in London.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
KRYSTA KAUBLE PACHMAN, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8830
E-mail: srabin@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Alejandra C. Salinas, Esq.
Savannah Ezelle, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
E-mail: asalinas@susmangodfrey.com
sezelle@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
Teresita T. Mercado, Esq.
DON BIVENS, PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 708-1450
E-mail: don@donbivens.com
teresita@donbivens.com
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands Intl. Ltd. Partnership disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from consolidated Sherman Act
class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Company,
successor in interest, ("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated.
On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Munster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the
defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating
an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard
form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required
to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for
himself or herself and other members of
the class.
On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to amend their complaint.
On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave
to amend.
The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their
complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs appealed this ruling.
In August 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower
court's decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the
lower court for further proceedings.
While the Company intends to vigorously defend these claims, it is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the
range of possible loss, if any.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership franchises and
operates quick service restaurants serving premium coffee and
other
beverage and food products under the Tim Hortons(R) brand, fast
food hamburgers principally under the Burger King(R) brand,
chicken
principally under the Popeyes(R) brand and sandwiches under the
Firehouse Subs(R) brand.
RETAIL FOOD: Settles Michel's Patisserie Franchisees Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ogg, writing for Business News Australia, reports that Gold
Coast-headquartered Retail Food Group (ASX: RFG) has agreed to
settle a class action brought by former and current Michel's
Patisserie franchisees over alleged losses from its 'fresh to
frozen' changes implemented between 2015 and 2016.
The changes saw some franchisees needing to drive long distances to
collect frozen cakes they would need to decorate themselves, and
during a period of heavy cost cutting at the group there were many
complaints about how this system impacted the quality and
reputation of stores.
The class action filed by law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth on
behalf of some 130 claimants in October 2021 was seeking millions
of dollars in damages, but binding deed to settle involves no
admission or payment.
"The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, involves
a dismissal of the proceeding by the applicant without RFG making
any admission or any payment to the applicant, to any class member
or towards the applicant's or the litigation funder's costs of the
proceeding," the company said in a statement to the ASX.
"The settlement includes releases by the applicant and class
members in favour of RFG and its related respondent entities.
"RFG has agreed to release applicable class members from historical
debts alleged in the proceeding."
Retail Food Group claims this will have no financial impact on its
FY24 results.
"RFG is pleased to have resolved the class action on this basis,"
the company said.
Business News Australia has sought comment from Corrs in response.
RFG shares are down 2.86 per cent at 6.8 cents per share (cps) at
the time of publication.
The class action is one of many lawsuits filed against Retail Food
Group, and not the only one relating to the Michel's Patisserie
brand. In December 2022 the company agreed to pay $5 million to
Michel's Patisserie franchisees who had paid levies into a
marketing fund between July 2012 and June 2017.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) had
alleged RFG knew that certain stores sold to franchisees had been
operated at a loss yet failed to disclose the fact before sale.
The company acknowledged these allegations without admission and
agreed to make payments to some affected franchisees, based on the
purchase price paid for their franchise less any amounts of
outstanding vendor finance loans.
"We initially took this action because we were concerned with the
alleged conduct and the impact on a number of small business
operators," ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said in late 2022 when
the regulator accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from RFG to
make the payments.
"This settlement, which consists of payments to franchisees and
waivers of debt totalling approximately $10 million, provides a
more certain and beneficial outcome for affected franchisees than
would likely result from the continuation of the ACCC's
long-running legal proceedings," she said at the time. [GN]
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Exchange Act-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Root Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from Exchange Act class suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
On March 19, 2021, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio (Case No. 2:21-cv-01197) on behalf of certain Root
shareholders.
The complaint alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in
connection with and following the Company's initial public
offering.
The complaint sought unspecified damages.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims set forth in the
complaint was granted and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice
on March 31, 2023, which dismissal was affirmed on April 29, 2024,
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Should plaintiffs further appeal, the Company intends to continue
to vigorously defend against the allegations.
Root, Inc. is a holding company. Its subsidiaries are Root
Insurance Company, Root Property & Casualty Insurance Company and
Root Reinsurance Company, Ltd.
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Insurance Contract Breach Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Root Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the insurance contract breach class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas.
On December 19, 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company's subsidiary, Root Insurance Company, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No.
1:22-cv-01328-LY) by an individual on her behalf and further
claiming to represent a putative class of insureds.
The complaint alleges that Root Insurance Company breached its
insurance contract and violated specific provisions of the Texas
Prompt Payment of Claims Act for an alleged failure to include
sales tax in total loss vehicle settlements.
The complaint seeks damages to include payment of alleged benefits
owed under the policy, in addition to pre- and post-judgment
interest and attorneys fees on behalf of the named plaintiff and
the putative class members.
Root Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the claims set forth in
the complaint was granted and the lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice on August 22, 2023, which dismissal has been appealed.
The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
Root, Inc. is a holding company. Its subsidiaries are Root
Insurance Company, Root Property & Casualty Insurance Company and
Root Reinsurance Company, Ltd.
SEAWORLD PARKS: Ward Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
KENNETH WARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., A
Foreign Profit Corporation, SEA WORLD OF FLORIDA, LLC., a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00838 (M.D.
Fla., May 3, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kenneth Ward worked for Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid plant engineering department employee from
approximately January 1989 through his retirement on March 2024, in
Orlando, FL. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff performed
work off-the-clock without compensation and denying him overtime
compensation, says the suit.
Headquartered in Orlando, FL, Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.
owns and operates theme parks in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
SIKA AG: Vera Antitrust Lawsuit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Vera Construction, L.L.C., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sika AG;
Sika Corporation; Chryso, Inc.; GCP Applied Technologies, Inc.;
Compagnie De Saint-Gobain S.A.; Saint-Gobain North America; Master
Builders Solutions Admixtures U.S., LLC; Master Builders Solutions
Deutschland GmbH; Cinven Ltd.; Cinven, Inc.; The Euclid Chemical
Company; RPM International Inc.; And Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-CV-05135, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on April 29, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-03244-LJL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' antitrust law violations in
connection with their alleged price-fixing conspiracy on concrete
admixtures, cement additives, and admixtures for mortar.
Sika AG manufactures and sells concrete admixtures, cement
additives, and admixtures for mortar in the United States. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bruce McCullouch, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
Telephone: (202) 777-4500
- and -
Gerald E. Burns, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL ROONEY PC
Telephone: (215) 665-5360
- and -
Christa C. Cottrell, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
E-mail: ccottrell@kirkland.com
- and -
Anne Salomon, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Telephone: (312) 862-3092
E-mail: anne.salomon@kirkland.com
- and -
Daniel E. Laytin, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
- and -
Anna E. Sanders, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
Telephone: (215) 665-3957
E-mail: anna.sanders@bipc.com
- and -
Heather P. Lamberg, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
Telephone: (202) 777-4500
- and -
Joshua Hazan, Esq.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Telephone: (248) 506-3234
E-mail: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com
- and -
Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
Telephone: (202) 636-5579
- and -
Peter Guryan, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
Telephone: (212) 455-2750
E-mail: peter.guryan@stblaw.com
- and -
Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq.
Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq.
FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
Telephone: (973) 536-2800
E-mail: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com
afishkin@fishkinlucks.com
- and -
Jeremy Heep, Esq.
PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P.
Telephone: (215) 981-4000
- and -
Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
BAKER MCKENZIE
Telephone: (202) 452-7077
- and -
Julian Newton Weiss, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Telephone: (215) 981-4885
SOUTHERN METHODIST: Wins Appeal on COVID Refund Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Akin has secured a significant appellate win at the Texas Supreme
Court for Southern Methodist University (SMU), with the court
ruling in favor of SMU that the application of Texas' Pandemic
Liability Protection Act (PLPA) to student Luke Hogan's
breach-of-contract claim does not violate the retroactivity clause
in Article 1, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution.
The case originates from a class action brought by former SMU
student Luke Hogan, who sought tuition and fee refunds for the
portion of the spring 2020 semester SMU was forced to offer online
due to government COVID-19 mandates. While the suit was pending,
the Texas Legislature passed the PLPA, which shields schools from
monetary relief for changes to their operations due to the
pandemic. A federal district court dismissed Hogan's claims and on
appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified
to the Supreme Court the question whether the PLPA violates the
retroactivity clause in Article I, Section 16 of the Texas
Constitution.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the PLPA does not violate the
retroactivity clause, reasoning that "retroactive" has never been
construed literally and is not subjected to a bright line test. The
Court also ruled that Hogan did not have a reasonable and settled
expectation to recover from SMU, mainly because the common-law
impossibility doctrine would have barred the heart of his claim,
regardless of the PLPA.
The Akin team was led by partner-in-charge of Akin's Dallas office
Scott Barnard and included senior counsel Heather Peckham and
litigation partner Brennan Meier.
Akin is a leading international law firm with more than 900 lawyers
in offices throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the
Middle East. [GN]
SPARKY'S CONSULTING: Miracle Seeks Field Supervisors' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN MIRACLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPARKY'S CONSULTING & TACTICS, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, and TIMOTHY MOORE,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01036 (D. Colo., April
17, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees required overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Denver, Colorado as
a field supervisor from February 2023 until he left his employment
on January 2024.
Sparky's Consulting & Tactics, LLC provides private security
services for private events, security consulting, and related
services for both commercial and residential customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (720) 699-3000
Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
E-mail: sengelson@ll.law
mkuhn@ll.law
aswan@ll.law
SUNPRO SOLAR: Tutson Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
TANISHA TUTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNPRO SOLAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00899 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2024) arises out of Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, including the National Do Not Call provision of Title
47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Allegedly, the Defendant unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff
constituted telemarketing and had a commercial purpose. Moreover,
the unsolicited telephone solicitations that Defendant transmitted
to Plaintiff's cellular device invaded Plaintiff's privacy, caused
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion upon on seclusion, and were a
distraction and nuisance to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks
only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury
on behalf of the Class.
Headquartered in Murrieta, CA, Sunpro Solar Inc. provides solar
energy specialist services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
gustavo@kazlg.com
SURFSHARK INC: Faces Pachoud Suit Over Auto-Renewal Payment Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY PACHOUD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SURFSHARK INC. and SURFSHARK B.V.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-02299-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2024)
is a class action seeking to challenge Defendants' deceptive
enrollment of unwary consumers, including Plaintiff, into
Defendants' auto-renewal payment plan, in violation of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law,
Unfair Competition Law and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants use this renewal scheme
to lure customers in and trap them in an automatically renewing
payment plan without disclosing to prospective consumers, as
required by California law, essential facts concerning the nature
of the payment. The Plaintiff and other consumers have been
deceived by Defendants' actions, and consequently have been
deceived into signing up for an automatically recurring payment
plan, says the suit.
Had Plaintiff and Class members been aware that Defendants charged
them on an automatically renewing basis, Plaintiff and Class
members would not have purchased the Product subscriptions.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by
Defendants' deceptive business practices, the suit asserts.
Surfshark Inc. is a cybersecurity company that provides privacy and
security solutions to consumers via subscriptions to its software
services and products on its website, www.surfshark.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
TARGET CORP: Storace Sues Over Misleading Sunscreen Product Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA STORACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03269 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2024), arises from Defendant's
misleading product labeling of its sunscreen products under its
up&up brand.
The suit alleges that Defendant's labeling "reef-conscious formula"
misleads Plaintiff and other consumers because its product contains
ingredients that are inconsistent with "protecting and
safeguarding" coral reefs.
Target is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates almost 2,000 big box retail stores throughout the nation,
with over seventy in New York, selling everything from furniture to
electronics to groceries. [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
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
TJX COMPANIES: Campos Files Suit Over Pixel Trackers in Emails
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that TJX class action
claims company embeds hidden spy pixel trackers in emails.
Who: Plaintiff Arlette Campos filed a class action lawsuit against
TJX Companies Inc.
Why: TJX allegedly embedded hidden spy pixel trackers in marketing
emails to procure sensitive identifying information from
consumers.
Where: The TJX emails class action lawsuit was filed in
Massachusetts federal court.
TJX Companies Inc. embeds hidden spy pixel trackers in emails it
sends to consumers, according to a new TJX class action lawsuit
filed April 22 in Massachusetts federal court.
TJX owns and operates several retail store chains, including TJ
Maxx, Marshalls, HomeGoods, Sierra and Homesense. Plaintiff Arlette
Campos says she frequently opened promotional TJX emails, not
knowing the retailer procured sensitive identifying information
each time she opened an email. She says she did not consent to this
practice.
The TJX class action says Arizona law prohibits the practice of
embedding trackers without first obtaining consumers' consent.
"These trackers, known as 'spy pixels,' enable companies to learn
information about the email transfer, including when and where the
email was opened," the TJX emails class action says. The TJX pixel
trackers allegedly log when the consumer opens the email, the
number of times the email is opened, the type of device used, and
the IP address linked to the consumer's location.
TJX pixel trackers are automatically downloaded when consumers open
TJX emails, Campos explains. She alleges class members were never
informed that TJX emails contained hidden spy pixels that allow TJX
to procure sensitive information.
Campos alleges the use of pixel trackers in TJX emails violates
Arizona Revised Statute section 44-1376.01, which prohibits the
procurement of any "communication service record" of "any resident
of the state without the authorization of the customer to whom the
record pertains, or by any fraudulent, deceptive or false means."
Arizona residents are permitted to seek civil remedies for
violations of this law, the TJX class action lawsuit explains.
Campos filed the TJX class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and
a proposed class of consumers in Arizona who opened a marketing
email containing TJX tracking pixels.
TJX recently issued a recall on some Tommy Bahama children's pants
because plastic pieces can come off and pose a choking hazard.
Campos is represented by Joel D. Smith of Smith Krivoshey PC and
Yitzchak Kopel, Alec M. Leslie and Israel Rosenberg of Bursor &
Fisher PA.
The TJX pixel trackers class action lawsuit is Arlette Campos v TJX
Companies Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-11067, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]
UNITED SUGAR: Triple Elm Sues Over Alleged Price-Fixing Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIPLE ELM COFFEE AND ICE CREAM, LLC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS
& REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS,
INC., CARGILL, INC., MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY, COMMODITY INFORMATION,
INC., AND RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No.
0:24-cv-01536-JMB-ECW (D. Minn., April 29, 2024) seeks to recover
treble damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief as
appropriate, based on violations of the Sherman Act and various
state antitrust and consumer protection laws by Defendants.
Since at least January 1, 2019, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators allegedly conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for granulated sugar sold throughout
the United States. As a result of Defendants' combination and
conspiracy, granulated sugar prices in the United States have been
artificially inflated throughout the class period, causing
Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and institutional
indirect purchasers to suffer overcharges, says the suit.
Headquartered in Edina, MN, United Sugar manufactures and sells
granulated sugar under the brand name Crystal Sugar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Robert Bonsignore, Esq.
Melanie Porter, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC
23 Forest Street
Medford, MA 02155
Telephone: (781) 350-0000
Facsimile: (702) 983-8673
E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Diagnostic & Interventional Alleges Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL SPINAL CARE OF LOUISIANA, INC. d/b/a
AVALA SPINE and COMPOUNDING PHARMACIES OF LOUISIANA, INC. d/b/a
PROFESSIONAL ARTS PHARMACY v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,
OPTUM, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-01011-DJP-DPC (E.D. La., April 22, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of failing to secure Plaintiffs' and Class members'
confidential personal information.
The Plaintiffs are among healthcare providers impacted by a massive
data breach that occurred on Defendant Change Healthcare's systems
on February 21, 2024. The Plaintiffs allege that the data breach
was mainly caused by Defendants' failure to adequately protect
confidential personal data it gathers and stores in its systems. As
a result of the data breach, healthcare providers throughout the
United States relying on Change’s platform suffered delays in
processing claims and revenue cycle services., say the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Minnetonka, MN, UnitedHealth Group is a
multinational health insurance and services company. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Korey Nelson, Esq.
Amanda Klevorn , Esq.
Claire Bosarge Curwick , Esq.
Natalie Earles, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
ccurwick@burnscharest.com
nearles@burnscharest.com
- and -
Warren Burns, Esq.
Laura Soundy Seggerman,Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson St., Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
lseggerman@burnscharest.com
- and -
Derrick Earles, Esq.
LABORDE EARLES
1901 Kaliste Saloom Road
Lafayette, LA 70508
Telephone: (337) 223-9925
E-mail: digger@onmyside.com
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports
UnitedHealthcare data breach leads to class action lawsuit.
Who: Douglas Castell filed a class action lawsuit against Change
Healthcare Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare
Inc. and Optum Inc.
Why: Castell claims UnitedHealth and its subsidiary Change failed
to secure the personal identifiable information and protected
health information of consumers during a February data breach.
Where: The Optum data breach class action lawsuit was filed in
Tennessee federal court.
UnitedHealthcare failed to secure the personal identifiable
information and protected health information of consumers during a
data breach caused by a ransomware attack against its subsidiary
Change Healthcare in February, a new UnitedHealthcare data breach
class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Douglas Castell's class action lawsuit claims
UnitedHealthcare and Change failed to take "reasonable, timely and
appropriate" measures to protect against the "foreseeable,
catastrophic cyberattack."
"As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failures,
Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will indefinitely
suffer serious injury," the Change Healthcare data breach class
action states.
Castell wants to represent a class of individuals who had their
private information exposed in the data breach, a class of
individuals who were prevented from using manufacturer savings card
programs as a result of the data breach and a subclass of
individuals whose prescriptions were not timely filled or refilled
as a result of the data breach.
Ransomware group ALPHV/BlackCat has taken responsibility for the
cyber attack, according to the class action lawsuit, which argues
both UnitedHealth and Change should have been able to anticipate
the incident.
"The attack was entirely foreseeable and avoidable," the
UnitedHealthcare data breach class action states.
Castell claims UnitedHealthcare and Change are guilty of unjust
enrichment, negligent failure to warn, negligent undertaking,
negligence per se and negligence.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief along with an award of actual, statutory,
consequential, punitive, exemplary and nominal damages for himself
and all class members.
Multiple class action lawsuits have already been filed against
Change in the wake of the data breach, with consumers similarly
arguing the company failed to protect their private information
during the incident.
The plaintiff is represented by John T. Spragens of Spragens Law
PLC and Jennifer R. Scullion, Christopher L. Ayers, Justin M.
Smigelsky and Nigel Halliday of Seeger Weiss LLP.
The UnitedHealthcare data breach class action lawsuit is Castell,
et al. v. Change Healthcare Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00339,
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
[GN]
VICTORIA: Judge Dismisses Public Housing Towers Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Dexter of The Age reports that the legal fight against the
demolition of Melbourne's high-rise public housing towers has been
dealt a major blow after the Supreme Court revealed it would
dismiss the class action brought on behalf of hundreds of tenants.
The state government has also indicated it will pursue the lead
plaintiff -- a public housing resident of 26 years -- for its costs
related to the case, a suggestion that shocked lawyers for the
tenants.
Justice Melinda Richards told the court that she would summarily
dismiss the class action case because she did not accept one of the
key pillars of the legal arguments put by lawyers for the residents
relating to cabinet's authority to greenlight the plan.
But she left the door open for a new class action trial to go ahead
if they were able to reframe their argument at a later date.
Announced as a key part of the state's landmark housing package
last September, then-premier Daniel Andrews promised that all 44
high-rise towers dotted across inner Melbourne would be razed and
rebuilt to fit three times as many residents over the next 30
years.
The class action was launched in January this year on behalf of
tenants of the first three occupied towers slated for demolition --
33 Alfred Street and 120 Racecourse Road in North Melbourne, and 12
Holland Street in Flemington -- led by lead plaintiff, youth worker
and community leader Barry Berih.
Berih has been a vocal critic of the state government in the past,
including of the harsh lockdown of nine public housing towers at
the height of the COVID-19 pandemic's second wave. He was involved
in a previous class action for residents related to the lockdowns.
The lawyers for the tenants had argued that Andrews' announcement
of the redevelopment in his government's Housing Statement (a
policy document signed off by cabinet) was invalid because only
Homes Victoria (formerly the Director of Housing) had the power
under Housing Act to redevelop the land and move tenants.
But Richards suggested Homes Victoria -- not cabinet -- should be
at the centre of the case, given it had the power to act on the
decision to demolish the towers.
"There is something of a missing middle [in the case]," she told
the court. "Yes, of course, cabinet made the decision but it is
being clearly implemented [by Homes Victoria]."
The decision came after the government applied to have the case
dismissed. The government's barrister, Liam Brown, SC, said it
would seek costs from the residents for the dismissal application,
given it was successful.
Asked to explain the decision to pursue costs against Berih, a
state government spokeswoman said that as the matter was before the
courts, "it would be inappropriate to comment".
Berih said residents found out about the tower demolitions from a
press conference on TV.
"Some of the residents have been there for more than 30 years,
we're a family, we're a community. That's the reason why I went for
it," Berih said outside court. "It just felt very, very
heartbreaking, basically, and just the way the government announced
it was very bad."
Richards did not give detailed reasons for dismissing the case,
saying she would publish them at a later date and hold off on
determining costs.
Of the 484 residents captured in the class action, 427 have already
signed relocation agreements and some have already moved out.
Dates set aside for a trial mid-year are still in place. Richards
will hand down her decision and reasoning on the summary
dismissal.
The second argument in the class action was that the government
failed to properly consider the human rights of residents when it
decided to redevelop the towers.
Inner Melbourne Community Legal lawyer Louisa Bassini claimed the
news was "not a setback at all".
"We're seeking to have residents who live in these towers provided
with an opportunity to hear the reasons for the decision to
demolish the towers and we haven't yet been provided that," she
said.
"So for us now, it will be a case of reframing our arguments
somewhat, but returning to put the argument again."
Responding to the suggestion the state would seek costs from the
public housing residents, Bassini said: "I think it gives an
indication that the government is reluctant to allow accountability
of its decision-making in this instance and it is disappointing."
Lawyers for the tenants had flagged they would bring in architects
as expert witnesses at trial to give evidence on how the buildings
could be retrofitted instead of demolished, preventing the upheaval
of the community.
About 30,000 people would live at the estates by 2051 under the
knockdown-rebuild plan -- with 11,000 in social housing, about 1000
more than occupy the towers now. The remainder would be private
apartments, with an unspecified number of so-called "affordable"
housing tenants.
While some residents have expressed an interest in new facilities,
citing the rundown conditions at some towers, others have joined
public protests against the plan.
Critics of the plan say it would upend the lives of thousands of
vulnerable residents -- an unfair trade-off for a 10 per cent
increase in the number of social housing units. Others hold
concerns about watered-down tenants' rights under a community
housing model.
The future of the case will be decided on May 31, when it comes
back before the court. [GN]
VIRGINIA POOL: Ward Sues Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------
BRAYDEN R. WARD through Danielle M. Ward, next friend, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
VIRGINIA POOL SERVICES INC., POOL SERVICES OF VIRGINIA, LLC, and
DIANA I. VERMILLION individually and as trustee for Virginia Pool
Services Inc. and Pool Services of Virginia, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00701 (E.D. Va., April 29, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage
Payment Act.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants on or about the
second week of January 2024, until March 31, 2024, as a lifeguard
at the Heritage Hunt Pool and Dominion Valley the end of his
employment, his promised wage was $13.00 an hour. However,
Plaintiff was not paid any wages for his labor from February 1,
2024, through March 31, 2024, and is owed 99 hours of wages, says
the suit.
Based in Prince William County, Virginia, Virginia Pool Services
Inc. is a small pool management and lifeguard company that provides
services to residential communities and recreational pool
facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
7540A Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-1800
Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com
VNET GROUP: Faces Semerak Securities Suit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
VNET Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2024 that in December 2023 and January
2024, the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers were named defendants in a putative securities class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that VNET Group, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose certain material information concerning its founder and
co-chairperson, Mr. Sheng Chen's financing activities and the
related impact on the company's business operations.
Case was captioned "Semerak v. VNET Group, Inc.," No. 23-cv-11187
(S.D.N.Y.). The lawsuit assert claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.
VNET Group, Inc. is a Cayman Islands holding company that conducts
operations in China primarily through subsidiaries involved in
value-added telecommunications service, data center service (except
for e-commerce, domestic conferencing, store-and-forward, and call
center services). It operates through four domestic PRC companies,
namely "VNET Technology," "BJ iJoy," "HuLianXinCheng Network," and
"SH Zhiyan."
WORLEY FIELD: Cochran Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
CHASE COCHRAN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
WORLEY FIELD SERVICES INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01475 (S.D. Tex.,
April 22, 2024), seeks unpaid wages and other damages over
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid "Straight
Time Employee". Plaintiff and other Straight Time Employees
regularly work more than 40 hours per workweek but do not always
receive overtime wages. Allegedly, Defendant pays its Straight Time
Employees the same rate for all hours worked, including those
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff and other
Straight Time Employees are granted a daily per diem but Defendant
does not include such compensation in the calculation of their
regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. The Plaintiff claims
that Defendant's existing overtime pay scheme for its Straight Time
Employees violates the FLSA.
Worley Field Services, Inc. is a construction company based in
Houston, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
[*] U.S. Class Action Settlements Flooded With Fraudulent Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for USNews, reports that Artsana, a
maker of child car booster seats, last year agreed to settle claims
that it had misled customers about how to use its products,
offering $50 to people who had bought Chicco-brand seats.
The company, which did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement, knew
it sold roughly 875,000 such seats, yet court records show that by
the end of October it had received more than 3.3 million claims for
payment.
Faced with a wave of questionable claims, Artsana reversed itself
and urged the court not to approve the settlement it had negotiated
to end the litigation.
"Criminals targeted the claims process in this case using
sophisticated methods to generate large numbers of fraudulent
claims," Artsana's attorneys told the federal court in Manhattan.
The court sided with Artsana and put the settlement on hold,
telling lawyers to return after they had sorted out the fraud
issue. The case is still pending, so no claims have been paid,
records show.
Fraudulent claims have exploded in the last year, siphoning money
out of settlements and threatening the class action system itself,
said lawyers and claims administrators interviewed by Reuters.
More than 80 million claims submitted in 2023 showed "significant"
signs of fraud, up more than 19,000% since 2021, according to a
report expected to be released on Thursday by digital payment
processor Digital Disbursements, which works with class action
claims administrators.
"It's an existential threat to the whole process," said Chris
Chorba, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who represents
Artsana.
In settlements where a company agrees to pay a set amount,
fraudulent claims can reduce the pool of money available for
consumers actually entitled to a recovery, the experts said. In
cases where companies agree to pay each claimant individually,
fraud can blow up the cost of settling.
Exactly how much money is stolen from settlements through fraud is
hard to quantify, said Steve Weisbrot, president and CEO of claims
administrator Angeion Group, because successful fraudsters evade
those trying to stop them. He said it is reasonable to think
millions of dollars have been siphoned out of settlements in recent
years.
"Someone is making money off of it, or it would stop," Weisbrot
said.
Plaintiffs' attorney Don Beshada, whose software company Claimscore
evaluates settlement claims for fraud, said he has identified at
least eight settlements in federal and state courts that have been
attacked by a similar wave of fraudulent claims since last year.
Among the cases Beshada and other administrators flagged was a
class action against cosmetics company Grande Cosmetics over claims
that its eyelash growth serum contained a chemical that required
regulatory approval. The company settled the case without admitting
liability for a little over $6 million. By April, 6.5 million
claims had been filed, with just over 110,000 ultimately deemed
valid by Claimscore and claims administrator Angeion Group, court
records show.
Neither Grande nor its lawyers responded to requests for comment.
The company and attorneys for the class have urged the judge to
approve the settlement, with plaintiffs' attorneys noting the
number of claims deemed valid represented a significant portion of
the 1 million customers the company had estimated were affected.
The judge has yet to issue a ruling.
About 80% of the 14 million claims were likely fraudulent in a
$45.5 million settlement in a class action accusing tobacco giant
Altria with misleading consumers about the addictiveness of its
Juul products, administrators from Epiq Global told the California
federal court. Altria settled without admitting liability.
Neither Altria nor its lawyers responded to requests for comment.
The settlement, approved in March, will be divided among all claims
the administrators deem valid.
Fraud is generally more common in cases involving allegations of
false advertising or defective products that yield small payouts
and may not require proof of purchase, lawyers and claims
administrators say. Companies settling such cases are generally
released from liability for essentially all allegations, so even
class members who get little or no payout cannot sue again.
This is not a new problem. In 2018, Reuters reported on scammers
using automated bots to submit fake claims in class actions. But
experts say fraudulent claims now are increasingly submitted not by
bots but by groups of people using stolen identities and addresses,
collecting payouts via check or digital payment. Some claims
administrators suspect fraudsters use masked or stolen IP addresses
to hide their locations.
In the short-term, weeding through all those claims can mean more
money for administrators who charge defendant companies more to
review a higher number of claims, Weisbrot said.
But in the long run, companies may become less willing to settle
cases if they believe their money will go to fraudsters, said
Chorba, the defense attorney who has represented several companies
whose settlements have been targeted.
Plaintiffs' attorneys, including Eli Wade-Scott, the head of the
class action practice at plaintiffs' firm Edelson, told Reuters
fake claims are undermining efforts to improve the rate of claims
by people who actually are entitled to part of the settlement. Some
of the attorneys said overly stringent tactics by administrators to
crack down on fraud could make thing harder for real claimants.
"Claims rates have to be excellent and those claims have to be
real," Wade-Scott said. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,613 Claims as of March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics
marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain
paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We were defending 3,613 claims as of March 31,
2024.
"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2024, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,045 claims at a
total cost of $10.7 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid
by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have
approximately $140 million of remaining coverage under primary and
excess policies that should be available with respect to current
and future asbestos claims.
"The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.
("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having
manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was
defending against 7,676 claims as of March 31, 2024, only twelve
claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and
only $15,000 in settlement costs have been incurred since 2001.
Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999 and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004,
Brandon’s insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A2FXNj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends 42 Exposure Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. has 42 open claims for the Six months ended March 31,
2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ashland is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990
in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley) and
the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a
former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing
components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.
"To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims,
Ashland retained third party actuarial experts Gnarus. The
methodology used by Gnarus to project future asbestos costs is
based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and
settlement rates, disease mix, open claims and litigation defense.
The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately
compared to the results of previously conducted third party
epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to
develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, Gnarus
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed,
as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving
those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and
receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income (Loss)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tcxnop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, Over the years, has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly by the Company's discontinued Motion Control business
between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s and roofing products
produced and sold by Henry Company LLC, which the they acquired on
September 1, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and
defense costs associated with these lawsuits.
The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs
associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of March 31,
2024, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is not
material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows.
The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
The Company currently maintains insurance coverage and is the
beneficiary of other arrangements that provide coverage with
respect to asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs.
The Company records the insurance coverage as a receivable in an
amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending
and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's
insurance coverage contains various exclusions, limits of coverage
and self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance
coverage disputes, the Company may incur expenses for indemnity and
defense costs and recognize income from insurance recoveries in
different periods, as such recoveries are recorded only if and when
it becomes probable that such costs will be covered by insurance.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fQ4YEL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 285 Pending Exposure Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold
prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused
mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Colgate-Palmolive states, "As of March 31, 2024, there were 285
individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal
courts throughout the United States, as compared to 279 cases as of
December 31, 2023. During the three months ended March 31, 2024, 26
new cases were filed and 20 cases were resolved by voluntary
dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the
settlements in the period presented was not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to such period's results of
operations. During the three months ended March 31, 2024, one case
resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the Company after a trial."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qJGpMk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain
cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the
plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these
claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be
determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims
for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which
may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage.
However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could
materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings
for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next
twelve months."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bHcinS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has $761MM Asbestos Liability at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc. has reported asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent of
$761 million at March 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EIxS5R
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as
defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and
installers of numerous types of equipment or products that
allegedly contained asbestos.
"At March 31, 2024, there were approximately 17,000 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The
vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme
Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were
on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme
Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions
filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small
portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New
York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The
complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that
contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
identifying any Company product.
"The Company will continue to vigorously defend against such claims
and is confident that it will be successful in doing so. The
Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of
asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company product
used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the asbestos
encapsulated in other materials such that airborne exposure, if it
occurred, was not harmful and is not associated with the types of
injuries alleged in the pending actions.
"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by
the Company's insurers. In view of the persistence of asbestos
litigation in the U.S., the Company expects to continue to receive
additional claims in the future. The Company intends to continue
its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At
March 31, 2024, the Company has successfully dismissed
approximately 28,400 cases by stipulation or summary judgment prior
to trial.
"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.
Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and
cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any
costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NvbgNb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Reports 14,231 Unresolved Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ESAB Corporation has 14,231 unresolved claims for the three months
ended March 29, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain entities that became subsidiaries of
ESAB Corporation in connection with the Separation are the legal
obligor, or owner, for certain asbestos obligations including
long-term asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance
receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos
liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense
costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos
obligations from the Former Parent's other legacy industrial
businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related
contingencies and insurance coverages.
"These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such
components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not
manufactured by any of the Company's, or Former Parent's,
subsidiaries, nor were the subsidiaries, producers or direct
suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged
to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet
the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the
U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the
Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of
each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos
claimant has fluctuated during the past several years while the
number of cases has steadily declined. The Company expects such
settlement value fluctuations to continue in the future based upon,
among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a
particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise.
To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no
payment to plaintiffs."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EUYYZE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $200MM Net Loss Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at March 31,
2024, had net asbestos loss reserves of $200 million, or 90.9%, of
total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities
cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We
believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate
of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rKqQ0T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends 617 New Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Flowserve Corp. states, "For the three months ended March 31, 2024,
the Company has received 617 new claims and recorded 847 resolved
claims.
"Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts. While the overall number of
asbestos-related claims in which we or our predecessors have been
named has generally declined in recent years, the number of such
claims may fluctuate or increase between periods, and there can be
no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average
cost per claim to us will not further increase. Asbestos-containing
materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and
used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not
believe that significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k0EXsT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Defends Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal
injury claims related to North American Refractories Company
(NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials
business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7aXE1f
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $124.7MM Litigation Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc. has a total litigation reserve of $124.7
million and $126.9 million as of March 31, 2024 and December 31,
2023, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising
from its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos related defense costs are excluded
from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as
services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future
developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these
matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operation or liquidity.
"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors’ legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately $151.4 million and $157.7 million as of March 31,
2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, which was included in
"Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities
and insurance recoveries are based on currently available
information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c1KKHe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Defends Personal Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in
various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state
and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies they previously acquired, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and
future asbestos-related claims was $110 million and $97 million as
of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, both net of
estimated insurance recoveries. While it is reasonably possible
that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded
liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable
to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability,
and do not believe additional material losses are probable.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZYAFV9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 1,367 Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of March 31, 2024, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,367 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease
of 20 claims from those previously reported, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Lincoln Electric states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 57,005 of those
claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were
tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after
appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and
1,017 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wnfcIO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to
date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to
the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to
these claims but believes that it will not incur any material
liability with respect to these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nXwGqK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Has 275 Pending Cases as of March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in
the U.S. arising from consumers' alleged exposure to talc in Dr.
Scholl's foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with
Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of
Merck's consumer care business to Bayer in 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In these actions, plaintiffs allege that they
were exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc and developed
mesothelioma as a result. As of March 31, 2024, approximately 275
cases were pending against Merck in various state courts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mRcB2I
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 783 New Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. (MLIC), for the three months ended March 31, 2024 and
2023, has received approximately 783 and 587 new asbestos-related
claims, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing
products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of MLIC’s employees during the
period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege
that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.
"MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC;
(iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries;
and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain
trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC,
while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be
no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vR83dN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 594 Pending Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., as of March 31, 2024, had 594 open
cases related to certain talc products previously sold by Barretts
Minerals Inc. (BMI), which is an increase from previous years,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company is party to a number of lawsuits arising in the normal
course of our business. The Company and certain of the Company's
subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases
seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc
products sold by the Company's subsidiary Barretts Minerals Inc.
("BMI"). On October 2, 2023, notwithstanding the Company's
confidence in the safety of BMI's talc products, the Company's
subsidiaries, BMI and Barretts Ventures Texas LLC (together with
BMI, "Barretts"), filed voluntary petitions for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Chapter
11 Cases") to address and comprehensively resolve BMI's liabilities
associated with talc. Minerals Technologies Inc. and the Company's
other subsidiaries were not included in the Chapter 11 filing.
During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company
anticipates that BMI will benefit from the operation of the
automatic stay, which stays ongoing litigation in connection with
talc-related claims against BMI. In addition, subject to certain
exceptions, the filing or continued prosecution of all talc-related
claims against BMI's non-debtor affiliates is temporarily stayed
through May 13, 2024 (subject to further extensions), the date on
which a hearing is scheduled on the status of the Chapter 11
Cases.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0p4Q8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Reports $17.7MM Accrued Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation, and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various
legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2024, December 31, 2023 and
March 31, 2023, our condensed balance sheets included accrued
liabilities for these other legal actions of $17.7 million, $14.2
million and $14.1 million, respectively. These liabilities do not
include costs associated with legal representation. Based on our
analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated
with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible
that these legal actions will materially adversely affect our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations.
"During the ordinary course of our business, contingencies arise
resulting from an existing condition, situation or set of
circumstances involving an uncertainty as to the realization of a
possible gain contingency. In certain instances, such as
environmental projects, we are responsible for managing the cleanup
and remediation of an environmental site. There exists the
possibility of recovering a portion of these costs from other
parties."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zvrOWe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any
asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate
asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical
products have contained components manufactured by third parties
incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and
for the periods ended March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023.
"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately $11 million to $22 million as of March 31, 2024, and
approximately $20 million to $43 million as of December 31, 2023.
Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to
occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amounts of $11
million and $20 million as of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023,
respectively, which are principally recorded in Other long-term
liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts
are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's
legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be
expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an
insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related
recoveries of approximately $3 million and $5 million as of March
31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, which are principally
included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wnfcIO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 19,510 Pending Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various
personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s wherein Westinghouse was neither a
producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are typically named as one of a large
number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the
majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified
which of our products is the basis of a claim. Claims (Tabular
dollars in millions, except per share amounts) against us in which
a product has been identified most commonly relate to allegations
of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material used in
conjunction with turbines and electrical equipment.
"As of March 31, 2024, we had pending approximately 19,510 asbestos
claims, as compared with approximately 19,970 as of December 31,
2023. During the first quarter of 2024, we received approximately
810 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 1,270 claims. We report claims as closed when we
become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or
when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material
terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness
of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of
evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs
for the years 2023 and 2022 for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately
$54 million and $57 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured
portion of the expenses.
"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. A significant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict
long-term future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances
may impact the estimate. We record an accrual for a loss
contingency when it is both probable that a liability has been
incurred and when the amount of the loss can be reasonably
estimated. The reasonably estimable period for our long-term
asbestos liability is 10 years, which we determined in consultation
with a third-party firm with expertise in estimating asbestos
liability and is due to the inherent uncertainties in the tort
litigation system. Our estimated asbestos liability is based upon
many factors, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated
average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type,
historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the
filing of new claims, and is assessed in consultation with the
third-party firm. Changes in circumstances in future periods could
cause our actual liabilities to be higher or lower than our current
accrual. We will continue to evaluate our estimates and update our
accrual as needed."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CgArfE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has $5.5MM Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation, in its press release issued on April 25, 2024,
has reported asbestos-related liabilities, current portion of $5.5
million and asbestos-related liabilities, non-current portion of
$56.0 million, as of March 31, 2024, according to the Company's
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oQTZ3O
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,460 Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at March 31, 2024, had approximately
1,460 cases outstanding for which they may be responsible for any
related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through
March 31, 2024, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of
asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$77.7 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity
and defense costs associated with the claims we face.
"In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold
in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations. When we
originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.
"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of
asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed
claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average
future settlement values. Based on the information contained in
the actuarial study and all other available information considered
by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PWLykC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 915 Active Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of March 31, 2024, was a
defendant in approximately 915 active asbestos cases involving
approximately 2,500 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 62 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in a jurisdiction
which permits filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At
December 31, 2023, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 915
active asbestos cases involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs.
Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that
the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims
against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total
number of plaintiffs.
"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.
"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside
valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate
an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the
Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends.
The analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several
years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S.
Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not
estimate an accrual for unasserted claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a1M4gf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports 5,265 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 5,265 individual claimants at Mar 31,
2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos‑containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries
incurred in fact resulted from exposure to UCC's products.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2TtXSs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 600 PI Lawsuits as of March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of March 31, 2024, there were approximately 600 such lawsuits.
We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related
personal injury claims and intend to continue to defend them
vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it
is possible that we could incur significant costs resolving these
cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending asbestos
litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In any
given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings
or matters could have an adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows. At March 31, 2024,
we had $16.0 million reserved for these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qhKKOA
*********
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 ***