/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240527.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 27, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 106 Headlines 3M COMPANY: South Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama A.P.P. GROUP: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ABC PHONES: Terry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ALLEGHENY COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALTIMMUNE INC: Mogan Sues Over Misleading Statements on Pemvidutide ALTUGLAS LLC: Notifies Settlement of Chemical Spill Class Action AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Hits Illegal Biometric Data Collection AMERICAN WATER: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Jeffries Class Suit AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL: Ramirez Sues Over Fiduciary Breaches ANTERO RESOURCES: Mcardle Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir. ARIZONA: Judge to Issue Injunction Ruling in State Prison Suit ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack AT&T INC: Orejudos and Felix Sue Over Breach of Customer Data AXT INC: Nowakowski Sues Over Securities Law Violations BAODEGA LLC: Velasquez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Eaton Class Suit in Toronto BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Generic Pricing Antitrust Suit BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Gutierrez Class Suit in Calif. BERKSHIRE BANK: O'Dell Files Suit in N.D. New York BIC USA: Butler Sues Over Failure to Disclose Synthetic Chemicals BIG SANDY FURNITURE: Porter Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio BK AUTO REPAIR: Faces Miranda Wage & Hour Class Lawsuit BLENDJET INC: Gould Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois BMO BANK: Tobiason Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin CALIFORNIA CREDIT: DACA Recipient Sues Over ECOA Violations CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAMPBELL SOUP: Perruzzi & Sullivan Sue for Worker Misclassification CENTRAL STAR: Ray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CHANGE HEALTHCARE: CDC Sues Over Ransomware Attack CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Journalists Sues Over Violations of Equal Pay CITGO PETROLEUM: Court Certifies "Marriage Penalty" ERISA Suit CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sjodin Says CLEARESULT CONSULTING: Dauch Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts COMANCHE COUNTY HOSPITAL: Whitmore Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. CONTINUUM HEALTH: Dressel Sues Over Cyber-Attack and Data Breach COUNTRY LIFE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Claims CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Sapan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Click et al. Suit Over FMLA Violations CVS HEALTH: Druzgalski Suit Removed to C.D. California DELTA AIR: Iuliano Seeks to Void Security Fee Refund Policy DOLCE & GABBANA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delays in Delivery DOLLAR TREE: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Cinnamon Product Recalls EQUINIX LLC: Holman Sues for California Labor Code Violations ERNEST HEALTH: Fernandez Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ESSEX PROPERTY: Vivoli Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices EVENT STAGING: Keller et al. Sue for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EXCELL OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Farmer et al. Say FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Fields Suit Granted in Part FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Mull Suit Granted in Part FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Sharp Suit Granted in Part FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Has Final Approval FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Smith Suit Has Final Approval FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Whitney Suit Has Final Approval FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees Granted FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Croteau Sues Over Inadequate Data Security FORWARD AIR: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks to Rescind Omni Merger FVP CENTURY: Pardo Sues Over Architectural Barriers in Property GAP INC: Carbajal Sues Over Alleged Use of Tracker Pixels GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt Owners to Receive Settlement Checks GLOBAL CORD: Gestion Sues Over Share Price Drop GOYARD ECOM: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GREEN DIAMOND: Valentine Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach GREEN ESCAPE: Tamayo Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation HANDI-FOIL CORP: Hood Alleges Misleading "Made in the USA" Labels HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Faces Kothari Securities Fraud Suit HORTUS NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says INARI MEDICAL: Faces Michiana Class Suit Over 21% Share Price Drop JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Duran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach LEPAGE BAKERIES: Court Defines "Transportation Workers" Exemption LOVO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Voice Theft MDL 3032: Settlement in Pest Infestation Suit Has Final Approval MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Chappell Suit Over Consumer Fraud NATIONAL HEALTH: Precioso et al. Sue over Unlawful Labor Conditions NEW SOUTH WALES: Strip Search Class Action Trial Date Set 2025 NOVO NORDISK: King Law Investigates Ozempic Side Effects PACIFIC STEEL: Bid to Vacate Case Deadlines in Berber Terminated PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Faces New Class Action From Delivery Drivers PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Property Law Violations PILOT TRAVEL: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Keeton Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Suit Over Energy Drinks' Caffeine Content PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris & Whitaker Sue Over Security Deposits RCI DINING: Moffitt's Bid for Conditional Certification Denied SALEM TOWNSHIP: Faces Liddle Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages SALVATION ARMY: Settles FCRA Class Action Lawsuit for $1.87MM SCHMIDT BAKING: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Silva Suit Stayed SECRIST MARKETING: Goudelias to Seek Settlement Approval by May 29 SHOPIFY INC: Appeals Court Revisits Consumer Class Action Lawsuit SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Munch Class Suit Over 40.1% Share Price Drop T-MOBILE US: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Sprint Merger T-MOBILE US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sprint Merger Class Action Suit TARKENTON SENIOR: Pinn Sues Over TCPA Violations TEACHERS FEDERAL: Sennhenn Sues Over Unlawful Time Rounding Policy TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertised Autopilot UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Bassen Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Merger With Change Healthcare UPHOLD HQ: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing VARSITY SPIRIT: Settles Greenwashing Class Action Law for $82.5MM VENUS CONCEPT: Underpays Field Service Engineers, Keller Says VESTIS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud VISA INC: Settles Anti-Trust Class Suit Over Interchange Fees VW GROUP: Settles Emissions Fraud Scandal Suit for EUR50MM WALMART INC: Court Rejects Raw Honey Class Action Lawsuit WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Remand Ruling in Little Labor Suit WEST REALM: Bids to Sever Claims From Onusz Adversary Suit Denied WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Appliance Buyout XIRIUZ LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Menendez Suit Alleges YELP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Schabot Suit Claims [*] FCC Voices Concerns Over Data Sharing in Connected Vehicles [*] Maryland Nursing Facilities Face Class Action on Lax Oversight ********* 3M COMPANY: South Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert South, et al. v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2024-901284.00. was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00597-GMB. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 Email: gregc@elglaw.com gary@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com A.P.P. GROUP: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. A.P.P. GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03781 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.mackage.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ABC PHONES: Terry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Terry, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24SMCV02258 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; and failure to pay overtime. ABC violated Labor Code because it failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because ABC had a company policy wherein, they would disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, since Plaintiff and others worked through their meal periods while "off the clock" and while clocked out, they were not compensated for all hours worked, which would be akin to a minimum wage violation. Furthermore, ABC did not pay proper reporting time pay to employees. Due to the above "off the clock" violations, ABC also violated Labor Code §510 because it failed to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees overtime compensation, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment. Plaintiff's and other aggrieved employees' actual work hours, including the "off the clock" work and time shaving, entitled them to overtime compensation however, ABC did not compensate its hourly, non-exempt employees with the correct amount of overtime due to the "off the 2 clock" work and time shaving, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working at ABC in Sales on October 2023 and is still currently employed. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. is a North Carolina corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 ALLEGHENY COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ALLEGHENY COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00465 (W.D.N.Y., May 14, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://allegheny.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://alleghenygators.com and https://www.alleghenyshop.com (collectively the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals --thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant operates the Allegheny College online retail store as well as the Allegheny College interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: 212.228.9795 Fax: 212.982.6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal ALTIMMUNE INC: Mogan Sues Over Misleading Statements on Pemvidutide ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MOGAN, Plaintiff v. ALTIMMUNE, INC., VIPIN K. GARG, RICHARD I. EISENSTADT, M. SCOTT HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01315-PX (D. Md., May 6, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff Mogan brings this federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Altimmune securities between December 1, 2023 and April 26, 2024, both dates inclusive. Throughout the Class period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Among other things, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Altimmune overstated the potential for pemvidutide to stand out from competing GLP-1 agonists based on the drug's efficacy and tolerability results observed in the MOMENTUM Trial. The Defendants also have overstated Altimmune's prospects for finding a strategic partner to develop pemvidutide, says the suit. Headquartered in Gaithersburg, MD, is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing treatments for obesity and liver diseases. Its common stock trades in an efficient market on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker symbol "ALT". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com ALTUGLAS LLC: Notifies Settlement of Chemical Spill Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action settlement has been reached with Altuglas LLC and Trinseo LLC in the lawsuit captioned McGraw, et al. v. Altuglas LLC, et al., No. 240100060 (Phila. CCP). The settlement resolves claims alleging that class members suffered out-of-pocket losses as a result of the release of chemicals in the Delaware River in March 2023, and the public notice and drinking water advisories issued by the City of Philadelphia and other media reports in connection with that release. Defendants vigorously deny that they violated any law but agreed to the settlement to avoid the expenses associated with continuing the litigation. The settlement entitles Settlement Class Members who suffered economic harm to compensation as described further below. The proposed settlement class includes "all persons that resided in, or entities that operated a physical business located in, the Impacted Area during March 24 to March 30, 2023." The term "Impacted Area" means the following Zip Codes: 19102, 19103, 19106, 19107, 19109, 19111, 19112, 19114, 19115, 19116, 19119, 19120, 19121, 19122, 19123, 19124, 19125, 19126, 19128, 19129, 19130, 19132, 19133, 19134, 19135, 19136, 19137, 19138, 19140, 19141, 19144, 19145, 19146, 19147, 19148, 19149, 19152, 19154. The lawsuit alleged that Defendants' manufacturing plant in Bristol, Pennsylvania caused a release of chemicals into a tributary of the Delaware River on March 24, 2023, upstream from the Baxter Drinking Water Treatment Plant that supplies drinking water to parts of Philadelphia. The City of Philadelphia subsequently issued an alert, including via cell phone text messages, that recommended people in the Impacted Area use bottled drinking water until further notice, which media and news outlets also broadcasted. The plaintiffs alleged that over the next several days, residents in the Impacted Area incurred out-of-pocket losses by purchasing bottled water and related transportation costs that they would not have otherwise incurred, and that certain businesses in the Impacted Area suffered business interruption losses. Settlement terms. Under the settlement, Defendants agreed to create a fund of $2.7 million from which to pay, subject to the Court's approval, payments to Eligible Settlement Class Members who submit a Claim Form, any attorneys' fees and expenses, a service award to the class representatives, and notice and administration costs. Eligible class members who submit a Claim Form affirming they suffered economic loss as a result of the accidental release of chemicals in the Delaware River, or because of the public notice and drinking water advisories issued in connection with the release, are eligible to receive a Base Payment of $25, which may be adjusted, as described in the Settlement Agreement available at www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com. Class members may also be eligible for additional damages if they provide documentation to the Settlement Administrator showing economic harm greater than $25. How do I receive payment? To receive a payment, you must submit a valid completed Claim Form. Claim Forms can be submitted online at www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com, and can also be mailed to the Philly Water Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, or emailed to info@PhillyWaterSettlement.com. Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online by August 16, 2024. Do I have any other options? You may exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by sending a written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator emailed or postmarked no later than July 17, 2024. If you exclude yourself, then you cannot receive a settlement payment, but you will not be bound by the Settlement. If you do not exclude yourself, then you may object to the Settlement, and you or your lawyer can appear before the Court. Your written objection must be sent to the Settlement Administrator emailed or postmarked no later than July 17, 2024. Specific instructions on how to exclude yourself from the Settlement or object are available at www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com. Who Represents Me? The Court has appointed lawyers from Berger Montague PC, Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. to serve as Lead Class Counsel. They will petition to be paid legal fees and their reasonable expenses from the Settlement fund. You may hire your own lawyer at your expense if you so choose. When Will the Court Consider the Settlement? The Court will hold a final approval hearing on September 23, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 636, City Hall, Broad and Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This notice is only a summary. For more information, including the full Notice of Settlement and Settlement Agreement, visit www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com, email info@PhillyWaterSettlement.com, or call 888-605-0772. Media Contact: Philly Water Settlement Administrator Angeion Group Shiri Lasman (215) 563-4116 [GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Hits Illegal Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03208 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Amazon.com Services employees, including Plaintiff, are required to undergo biometric authentication each shift in order to receive compensation. Specifically, upon information and belief, Amazon.com Services has collected and stored the facial geometry of each employee who was required to use the facial geometry scanning technology as part of its timeclock procedure. As such, Plaintiff's facial geometry should have been permanently destroyed by Amazon.com Services following each time punch and at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment. However, Amazon.com Services failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's facial geometry scans following each time punch or at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment, says the suit. Amazon.com Services, LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services distributes its products worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com AMERICAN WATER: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Jeffries Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ American Water Works Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company's subsidiary West Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC) continues to defend itself from the Jeffries class suit in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County. On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by the Company’s West Virginia subsidiary ("WVAWC"). The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed, and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015, to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015, to all customers affected by this event. On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage. In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying the issues class. In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a decision issued in another case relating to the class certification issues raised on appeal. In July 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again certifying a class to address at trial certain liability issues but not to consider damages. In August 2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court's July 2022 order, which petition was denied on June 8, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the Circuit Court set a date of September 9, 2024, for a class trial on issues relating to duty and breach of that duty. The trial will not find class-wide or punitive damages. The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. American Water Works Company, Inc. is a water utility company based in Camden NJ. AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL: Ramirez Sues Over Fiduciary Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------ Alfredo Ramirez and Ramon Santos Castro, individually and as representatives of a class of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "AMPAM ESOP" or the "ESOP") v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks, John G. Mavredakis, the AMPAM Board of Directors, Neil Brozen, and John and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 5:24-cv-01038 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2024), is brought to recover the losses suffered by the ESOP and the participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP, to obtain other equitable and remedial relief as provided by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and to otherwise remedy Defendants' prohibited transactions and fiduciary breaches in violation of ERISA. The Plaintiffs and other employee-participants (whose ESOP retirement accounts were used to purchase 100% of AMPAM stock from the Sellers) were not given an opportunity to negotiate or otherwise take part in the determination of the price that they paid for AMPAM stock. They only found out about the ESOP Transaction after the ESOP Transaction was completed and the $247 million purchase price was approved, which left the ESOP deeply in debt and allowed the Sellers to cash out their interest in AMPAM. In fact, rather than involving the employees whose retirement accounts would be used to buy AMPAM, the Parks Brothers hand-picked Neil Brozen ("Brozen" or "Defendant Brozen") as the Trustee of the ESOP. Brozen was supposed to be an independent third party acting with undivided loyalty to the ESOP and its participants. However, and as discussed infra, the Parks Brothers collectively controlled AMPAM and used the ESOP governance structure to retain the right to fire Brozen as the ESOP Trustee if Brozen did not carry out the wishes of the Parks Brothers and other Company insiders. Because the ESOP did not have sufficient money to purchase the AMPAM stock from the Sellers for $247 million, Brozen executed loans whereby the ESOP borrowed virtually all of the ESOP's purchase price. In addition, AMPAM itself guaranteed the loans the ESOP took to finance the purchase of AMPAM stock. Thus, if the ESOP could not make required loan payments, the Company was required to do so, which made the Company indebted for almost its entire value as a result of the ESOP Transaction that was orchestrated and completed by Defendants. These loans are reported in filings with the Department of Labor. The imprudent and disloyal ESOP Transaction terms caused ESOP participants to suffer monetary losses in their ESOP retirement accounts. There is no recognized market for private stock like AMPAM's, and the value of the stock is determined based on an appropriate valuation report or stock appraisal. The valuation documents related to AMPAM's stock are, and continue to be, controlled by the Seller Defendants. Plaintiffs and other employee-participants have never been given access to the valuation reports underlying the value of the AMPAM stock in their retirement accounts. Based on Defendants' duty to disclose all relevant information that bears upon their retirement investments in AMPAM, Mr. Ramirez and other employee-participants asked Defendants to provide the valuation reports. However, Defendants refused to do so. The Defendants together orchestrated and carried out the ESOP Transaction to serve the Sellers' interests while the ESOP participants' interests were harmed. The ESOP obtained little control over a company (AMPAM) whose operations were impaired by the enormous debt load. As a result, the long-term value of AMPAM stock was substantially in doubt. Ultimately, the ESOP Transaction allowed the Parks Brothers to sell a non-controlling interest in AMPAM to the ESOP participants for significantly more than such an interest was worth because the Parks Brothers did not give up full control over AMPAM. The Defendants' actions as outlined herein harmed the ESOP and caused Plaintiffs and all other ESOP participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement savings, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were participants in the ESOP as defined by ERISA. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. provides residential plumbing subcontractor services for multifamily residences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 Email: smartin@sandiego.edu - and - Eleanor Frisch, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 400 South 4th Street # 401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: efrisch@cohenmilstein.com jschutz@cohenmilstein.com ANTERO RESOURCES: Mcardle Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Mcardle Family Partnership has filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled McARDLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION and KEY OIL COMPANY, Defendants, Civil No. 1:22-CV-1, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at Clarksburg. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case involves allegations of underpayment, nonpayment, and untimely payment of oil and gas royalties by Defendants Antero and Key Oil. The Plaintiff brings individual and class action claims. The class allegations are only against Antero. The Plaintiff defines the class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as follows: Persons and entities, including their respective successors and assigns, to whom Antero has paid overriding royalties (ORRI Royalties) on oil and natural gas, produced by Antero from wells located in West Virginia at any time since April 15, 2012, pursuant to overriding royalty agreements (the Royalty Agreements) which do not expressly allow deductions for costs and expenses (excluding taxes). On September 30, 2022, Judge Thomas S. Kleeh of the Northern District of West Virginia denied the Defendants' motion to bifurcate Count II and stay the remainder of the action, and referred discovery motions to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment with respect to Count Two. Plaintiff also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On May 29, 2024, Judge Kleen entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants' motion and denying Plaintiff's motion. The appellate case is captioned as Mcardle Family Partnership v. Antero Resources Corporation, Case No. 24-1347, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 22, 2024.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MCARDLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Charles Edward Amos, II, Esq. Scott Sumner Segal, Esq. SEGAL LAW FIRM 810 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25301-0000 Telephone: (304) 344-9100 - and - Jason Patrick Foster, Esq. PENCE LAW FIRM PLLC 10 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-7250 - and - Frank E. Simmerman, III, Esq. Frank Edward Simmerman, Jr., Esq. Chad Lewis Taylor, Esq. SIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC 254 East Main Street Clarksburg, WV 26301-0000 Telephone: (304) 623-4900 Defendants-Appellees ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; KEY OIL COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation; and FRANKLIN L. BUTLER, an individual, are represented by: Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. Charles S. Nary, Esq. Holly R. Trogdon, Esq. Sahng-Ah Yoo, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 - and - Amy Marie Smith, Esq. Lauren K. Turner, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 400 White Oaks Boulevard Bridgeport, WV 26330 Telephone: (304) 933-8000 ARIZONA: Judge to Issue Injunction Ruling in State Prison Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Duhownik of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge said she's prepared to issue a ruling finding the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry in violation of her permanent injunction in a decade-old federal class action over the state's prison conditions. U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver revealed her disappointment in the department's lack of compliance with the order -- which required the department to increase staffing to provide better physical and mental health care to the more than 40,000 prisoners in Arizona's 14 prisons -- in a status conference. "As far as the provisions of the injunction, I think 75% of them have been violated already," the Bill Clinton appointee said from her bench in a federal courthouse in Phoenix. The April 2023 permanent injunction, based on a draft order from that January, came nearly a year after Silver found that the prison system "failed to provide, and continues to refuse to provide, a constitutionally adequate medical care and mental health care system for all prisoners." The injunction identified staffing shortages in the department's medical contractor, NaphCare, and required the vacant positions to be filled by July 7, 2023. Nearly a year after the deadline, the department is closer to its goal, but still sees serious shortages. To spur the department into compliance, court-appointed monitors including a psychologist and a health care policy consultant issued a staffing study and plan to implement in the Arizona prisons. Silver considered approving the staffing plan, but wanted to hear objections from the parties. Because department heads worried that implementing the entire staffing plan would prove too financially burdensome, the monitors developed a pilot program that would first be conducted at two of the 14 prisons for six months. After that, the parties could analyze what issues need the most attention and finalize the staffing plan for the entire prison system. Dr. Marc Stern, an internist specialized in correctional medicine and one of the court-appointed monitors, said in court that staffing at the two pilot locations can't be increased by siphoning staff away from other locations, but instead must come from an overall increase in NaphCare employees. While the department lamented high costs in its written response to the staffing plan in April, it wasn't until that attorneys made its financial situation clear. "We don't have the money to do this," defense attorney Daniel Struck told Silver. "It would require a new contract with NaphCare. It would require asking for approval from the [Joint Legislative Budget Council]. We can't do that in this amount of time." Struck said the department has been operating at a deficit in its attempts to follow other provisions of the permanent injunction. Though it's been withholding money from NaphCare as sanctions for not meeting staffing and salary requirements, it's still struggling to make ends meet, Struck said. He asked that he be given the chance to brief the court on potential costs and contract amendments with NaphCare before Silver issues a ruling. Corene Kendrick, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiff class, showed no sympathy for the department's apparent dire straits. "This is just dragging things out," she told Silver. "Our clients are continuing to suffer under a system that you found unconstitutional almost two years ago." Kendrick asked why the defendants didn't bring their financial issues up earlier if they've known about the permanent injunction since last January. "They knew this was coming," she said. Silver said she's ready to approve the staffing study and plan, but may request more briefing from the parties on when, if at all, she should order the pilot program to be implemented. "I haven't decided what to do," she said. Struck said the department won't be financially ready to begin the program until at least late 2025. Earlier in the four-hour hearing, Stern dispelled some of the department's concerns with the staffing study itself. For example, the department contested the increase of licensed physicians to reduce daily workloads to just 15 patients per physician per day. The department argued that some of its physicians can see up to 30 patients per day. "It's just not realistic," Stern told the court, explaining that it would require physicians to spend just 10-15 minutes per day with each patient. The case began in 2012 when a class of prisoners sued the state, claiming inadequate health care in the prisons led to "unnecessary pain and suffering, preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement, and death." In addition to increasing full-time staff, Silver's permanent injunction required improvements in several areas including better medical record documentation, patient confidentiality protections and regular and timely delivery of medications. The Department of Corrections is also required to implement programs for suicide prevention and analysis, monitoring health care trends among patients, language accessibility and rapid medical and mental health screenings upon intake. It's unclear which of the provisions Silver believes the department is in violation of, but she said she'll allow the defendants to brief the issue before she issues an official order. [GN] ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ----------------------------------------------------------- Susan Morse of Healthcare Finance reports that Ascension is facing two class action lawsuits for the May 8 ransomware attack that reportedly continues to disrupt operations due to disconnection from the Epic EHR and cause long ER wait times for some of the health system's 140 hospitals. On May 12, Katherine Negron filed a class action complaint against Ascension in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 13, Ana Marie Turner filed a similar lawsuit in federal court for the Western District of Texas. Both civil suits, filed by the Law Offices of T.J. Jesky in Chicago, seek monetary damages and demand a jury trial. The Black Basta ransomware attack brought down the Ascension IT Systems, the complaints said, citing the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The lawsuits allege that Ascension failed to safeguard personal identifying information and protected health information. Because of the cyberattack, the plaintiffs were unable to effectively communicate with their healthcare providers through the MyChart patient portal or receive the requisite medical care and attention they needed, the complaint said. WHY THIS MATTERS The ransomware attack resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of PHI, including names, dates of birth, patient records and Social Security numbers, the lawsuits said. "Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of further misuse, fraud and identity theft due to their sensitive Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals as a result of the tortious conduct of the defendant," said the Negron lawsuit. Ascension failed to implement "reasonable and industry standard data security practices," the lawsuit said. "The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack." In addition, according to the complaint, "(the) Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks." The plaintiffs also want improvements to Ascension's data security systems, future annual audits and adequate credit-monitoring services. THE LARGER TREND The cyberattack affected one of the largest health systems in the country on the heels of a February ransomware attack that continues to impact Change Healthcare. Change is owned by Optum, which is affiliated with the largest insurer in the nation, UnitedHealthcare. Change, which offers claims management, was immediately taken offline after the ransomware attack. While systems are coming back online, the disruption continues to affect hospital and physician practice revenue due to delays in claims payment. UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty confirmed the company paid a $22 million ransom in bitcoin to protect personal health information. [GN] AT&T INC: Orejudos and Felix Sue Over Breach of Customer Data ------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL LEE OREJUDOS and JEAN FELIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01085-E (N.D. Tex., May 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and approximately 73 million other individuals' personally identifying information and asserts claims for, among other things, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. Although AT&T's data systems were compromised at least as early as 2019, it initially covered up the breach. Indeed, AT&T denied its systems had been breached or that customer data available on the dark web came from their systems in 2021, and AT&T did not reveal the true scope of the data breach until April 2024. Moreover, the data breach was directly and proximately caused by AT&T's failure to implement basic, reasonable, and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect their systems, software, and networks from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack, says the suit. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T is a telecommunications company that provides internet services and products, a mobile 5G network, and other telecommunications services and products to individuals and businesses across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2011 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law AXT INC: Nowakowski Sues Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG NOWAKOWSKI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXT, INC., MORRIS S. YOUNG, and GARY L. FISCHER, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03341 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Nowakowski brings this securities class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded AXT, Inc. (AXTI) securities between March 24, 2021 and April 3, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, Defendants allegedly made several false and misleading statements or omissions of material facts about the business and financial condition of the AXTI. Among other things, Defendants failed to disclose that AXTI overstated its property holding and that AXTI routinely engaged in environmental violations and unsafe business practices, says the suit. AXTI operates as a materials science company that develops and produces high-performance compound and single element semiconductor substrates, also known as wafers. Its common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol "AXTI". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com BAODEGA LLC: Velasquez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------- ROBINSON VELASQUEZ v. THE BAODEGA LLC, and KENNY YIE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03486 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Velasquez was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher, waiter, and kitchen assistant from approximately November 2022 until April 30, 2024. Despite the mandatory pay obligations, Defendants compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $12.33 per hour and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay throughout his employment. During this period, there were numerous instances wherein Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek yet was not compensated at the overtime rate, says the suit. The Baodega LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 7 W 20th St., New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Eaton Class Suit in Toronto -------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Eaton class suit in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario. BHC and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively "the Company") have been named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20). The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under federal law. The proposed class action contains similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company disputes the claims against it and this case will be defended vigorously. Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada. BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Generic Pricing Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the generic pricing antitrust class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. BHC's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) ("Bausch Health US"), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) ("Bausch Health Americas") (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively, the "Company"), are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation ("MDL") entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16 MD-2724). The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits, which are brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, hospitals, pharmacies, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, are consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which are consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. State of Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:20-03539 (D. CT, C.A. No. 3:20-00802), in which Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas are defendants has been remanded to and is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed in these cases. The cases have been put in deferred status. The Company disputes the claims against it and these cases will be defended vigorously. Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada. BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Gutierrez Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gutierrez class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. Bausch Health US filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice. In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further, which was granted. In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief; Appellees’ response briefs were filed October 8, 2021. This matter was stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021, due to the preliminary injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court in the LTL bankruptcy proceeding. This stay included Appellants' reply brief deadline, which was previously due to be filed on or before December 2, 2021. On March 9, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order extending the stay through July 29, 2022. On July 29, 2022, Johnson & Johnson filed a status report in the Gutierrez appeal, outlining the developments since the last status report and the imposition of the stay. Johnson & Johnson noted that following a July 26, 2022, hearing, the Bankruptcy Court left the preliminary injunction in place, and asked the Ninth Circuit to continue to stay this action while the bankruptcy preliminary injunction remained in place. On January 20, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until February 17, 2023. On February 17, 2023, Johnson & Johnson requested that the court afford it 60 days – until April 18, 2023, or seven (7) days following any lifting of the LTL Bankruptcy Court's preliminary injunction, whichever comes earliest – to provide an additional status report about the bankruptcy proceeding and the Third Circuit dismissal for which the LTL has requested a rehearing. On April 7, 2023, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filed a status report regarding the bankruptcy proceeding advising the Court of the dismissal of the prior bankruptcy proceeding and the filing of the second bankruptcy proceeding, as well as the preliminary injunction and stay order, and requesting the stay of the appeal remain in place until May 10, 2023, which was granted. Following the entry of a preliminary injunction applicable to this case, which was extended until August 26, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay to June 15, 2023. On June 22, 2023, Johnson & Johnson/LTL filed a status report requesting the stay be extended to August 26, 2023, consistent with the extension of the preliminary injunction by the bankruptcy court. On August 15, 2023, Johnson & Johnson filed a supplemental status report notifying the Ninth Circuit that the second bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed on August 11, 2023 so the stay could be lifted and briefing could proceed to conclusion and setting of oral argument. On September 13, 2023, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay. On April 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on Plaintiffs' appeal of the lower court's dismissal of the case with prejudice, and, on April 29, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition that affirmed the dismissal of the case in full. Bausch Health US disputes the claims in this lawsuit and will defend it vigorously. Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada. BERKSHIRE BANK: O'Dell Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkshire Bank. The case is styled as Mark S. O'Dell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Berkshire Bank, Case No. 5:24-cv-00652-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Berkshire Bank -- https://www.berkshirebank.com/ -- is an American bank headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter M. Spett, Esq. Scott Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Phone: (954) 755-4799 Fax: (646) 895-7585 Email: pspett@spettlaw.com ssilver@silverlaw.com BIC USA: Butler Sues Over Failure to Disclose Synthetic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Casina Butler and Benson Pai, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BIC USA INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02955-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2024), is brought to recover damages and injunctive relief for Defendant's continuing failure to disclose to consumers that its shaving razors sold under the brand name "BIC" (collectively, the "Products"), contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which are synthetic chemicals that pose undue health risks, even at low levels. Laboratory studies have shown that PFAS exposure raises a host of health effects, such as various cancers, liver damage, and immunotoxicity effects. Because of the concerns presented by PFAS, consumers--like Plaintiffs--care about their presence, even if in small amounts. Yet Defendant does not inform consumers of the presence of PFAS in the Products, despite its knowledge that all the Products contain PFAS. Indeed, Defendant itself recently disclosed its intentional use of PFAS in its Products to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, in adherence to the Maine PFAS reporting law requirements. The public advocacy group, Defend Our Health, received this information under a Freedom of Access Act request for public records and thereafter assisted in publishing Defendant's disclosure of PFAS in its Products. The Defendant knew or should have known that PFAS are unsafe and raise health risks because "the dangers of PFAS are well known" to the point where "public demand is leading to a growing market for PFAS-free products." Based on Defendant's omission, a reasonable consumer would expect that the Products are free from PFAS. Yet, Defendant does not notify consumers, like Plaintiffs, that the Products contain PFAS, synthetic chemicals that pose undue health risks to humans. As such, Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all purchasers of the Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Defendant's Razors. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells shaving razors, including the Products, throughout California and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com BIG SANDY FURNITURE: Porter Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Sandy Furniture, Inc. The case is styled as Marissa Porter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Big Sandy Furniture, Inc. doing business as: Big Sandy Superstore, Case No. 1:24-cv-00282-JPH (S.D. Ohio, May 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Big Sandy Furniture, Inc. doing business as Big Sandy Superstore -- https://www.bigsandysuperstore.com/ -- offer a large selection of top-quality brands in appliances, electronics, mattresses, and furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BK AUTO REPAIR: Faces Miranda Wage & Hour Class Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- MILTON ISMAEL GARCIA MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BK AUTO REPAIR & COLLISION LLC. (D/B/A BK WASH & REPAIR CENTER), MOHAMMED AWAD, and MOHAMMAD HASSAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-03385 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay appropriate minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants, alleges that he was not paid appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours that he worked. The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law regulations. The Plaintiff now brings claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA and the NYLL, as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. BK Auto Repair & Collision LLC operates a carwash and repair business located in Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BLENDJET INC: Gould Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tommy Gould, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLENDJET INC., Case No. 24LA501 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on May 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01273. The Plaintiff alleges that BlendJet is liable for the defective product under four Counts: breach of implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (Count I); deceptive practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count II); unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count III); and unjust enrichment (Count IV).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander A. Pabon, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: apabon@sgrlaw.com BMO BANK: Tobiason Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ean J. Tobiason, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. BMO BANK N.A., was removed from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00590. The Complaint alleges that "in addition to the unlawful collection or attempt to collect deficiency balances from consumers, BMO has maintained a practice and policy of reporting to the three national consumer reporting agencies, to wit: Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., Experian, Inc., and TransUnion, LLC (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "CRAs") false derogatory information concerning Plaintiff and the members of a class as to monies owed to BMO."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq. LEIN LAW OFFICES LLP PO Box 761 15692 Highway 63 North Hayward, WI 54843 Phone: (715) 634-4273 Email: mlein@leinlawoffices.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Jamison, Esq. BMO BANK N.A.- LEGAL 320 S. Canal Street, 7th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 461-4694 Email: jeffrey.jamison@bmo.com CALIFORNIA CREDIT: DACA Recipient Sues Over ECOA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- A.J. S. Dhaliwal and Mehul N. Madia of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP reports that on May 3, a California resident filed a class action lawsuit in federal court accusing a Los Angeles-based credit union of discriminatory practices, and raised a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, and violations of the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges his automobile loan application was unfairly denied because of his immigration status as a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient. DACA, a federal immigration program, provides temporary work permits and protection from deportation for certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children. According to the complaint, despite initially receiving approval for the loan, the credit union later requested additional documentation and ultimately rejected his application because he is not a permanent resident and does not possess an individual taxpayer identification number. Putting It Into Practice: The lawsuit, filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund on the resident's behalf, is the latest in a series of legal challenges against financial institutions by the advocacy group on behalf of DACA recipients. Recent settlements in similar cases underscore the importance of lenders adhering to anti-discrimination laws and fair lending practices. While ECOA allows a creditor to consider an applicant's immigration status when necessary to determine the creditor's rights regarding repayment, the CFPB and DOJ's view is that "unnecessary or overbroad reliance on immigration status, including when that reliance is based on bias, may run afoul of the law." Accordingly, lenders must exercise extreme care if they use DACA status in their underwriting practices. [GN] CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00467 (W.D.N.Y., May 14, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.caltech.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://gocaltech.coml, https://caltech-athletics-shops.spiritsale.com/products, and https://caltechstore.caltech.edu/, (collectively the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals --thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant operates the Caltech online retail store as well as the Caltech interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: 212.228.9795 Fax: 212.982.6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal CAMPBELL SOUP: Perruzzi & Sullivan Sue for Worker Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PERRUZZI, JEREMIAH SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, and SNYDER’S-LANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11204 (D. Mass., May 6, 2024) seeks for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and other damages arising from the misclassification of delivery drivers as independent contractors and asserts claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for violations of the Massachusetts General Laws. The Plaintiffs regularly work anywhere from 35 to 50 hours per week, delivering the Defendants' products along their designated routes. However, due to the worker misclassification, Plaintiffs have not been paid hourly compensation; have not received benefits, paid time off, or protections should they be injured while delivering Campbell's products; and have not been entitled to compensation for expenses, says the suit. Headquartered in Camden, NJ, Campbell Soup Company is a processed foods manufacturer in the United States, producing meals, beverages, and snacks under a variety of brand names and distributing their products across the country, including in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin C. Rudolf, Esq. Sarah H. Varney, Esq. MURPHY & RUDOLF, LLP 446 Main Street, Suite 1503 Worcester, MA 01602 Telephone: (508) 425-6330 Facsimile: (508) 536-0834 E-mail: brudolf@murphyrudolf.com varney@murphyrudolf.com CENTRAL STAR: Ray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Tiarra Kristina Ray, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, v. CENTRAL STAR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.; MARY HOWARD; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12059 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants violated Labor Code because it failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because Plaintiff would engage in work-related tasks while she was clocked out for lunch in that her meal breaks would be interrupted in that Plaintiff would be driving clients or working out in the field. The latter is considered a minimum wage violation in that Plaintiff was not compensated for all hours worked. Moreover, the Defendants had a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide its employees with proper and accurate reporting time pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working at the Defendants in 2022 as a Peer Mentor. Central Star Behavioral Health, Inc. is a California corporation, doing business in the County of LOS ANGELES, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 CHANGE HEALTHCARE: CDC Sues Over Ransomware Attack -------------------------------------------------- Cardiovascular Diagnostic Center (a professional medical corporation), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC., and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00623-TAD-KDM (W.D. La., May 13, 2024), is brought against Defendants seeking redress for their unlawful and tortious conduct and asserting claims for negligence and unjust enrichment as a result of a breach and ransomware attack. Between February 12, 2024 and February 21, 2024, Change experienced a data breach and ransomware attack which exposed sensitive medical records and identifying information for up to 112 million United States patients, as well as billing, insurance, and other data. Hackers gained access to Change's systems and the data therein by simply using compromised login credentials on an outward-facing web based "portal" for employees. For nine days, the hackers, undetected, proceeded to review the data in Change's internal systems, exploiting apparently unrestricted access to not only folders and files containing sensitive information from providers across the healthcare industry, but also source code files for Change's healthcare services. The hackers, members of known cybercriminal organization BlackCat, were not detected by any security measure implemented by Defendants, even though they would have been detected, or even stopped at the door, if Defendants had implemented basic cybersecurity precautions that the FBI and other authorities specifically urged businesses to implement, no later than April 2022, to prevent and protect against data breach and ransomware attacks by this specific organization. The Defendants, with basic industry standard cybersecurity, threat detection, and incident response measures, including measures recommended in response to the known tactics of BlackCat years prior, could have prevented the attack and events that followed. They chose instead to shift the brunt of the impact of their poor security and planning to healthcare providers, including Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, Cardiovascular Diagnostic Center (A Professional Medical Corporation) is a resident of Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. Change is a subsidiary of healthcare mega-conglomerate UHG, providing online administrative and technological support for payers, providers, and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lundy, Esq. Kristie M. Hightower, Esq. LUNDY LLP 501 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Phone: (337) 439-0707 Fax: (504) 439-1029 Email: mlundy@lundyllp.com khightower@lundyllp.com - and - Stephen J. Herman (#23129) Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 586-5252 Fax: (504) 586-5250 Email: sherman@fishmanhaygood.com kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com pthibodeaux@fishmanhaygood.com hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Journalists Sues Over Violations of Equal Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Kade Heather, writing for abc7, reports that seven Chicago Tribune journalists filed a class-action lawsuit on May 16, Thursday, against the newspaper and its owner, alleging violations of equal pay based on sexual and racial discrimination. The lawsuit claims systematic pay disparities between female and male employees, as well as between Black and white employees under its current ownership of Alden Global Capital and dating back to its previous owner, the Tribune Publishing Co. "This is, in part, about protecting journalism," Michael Morrison of the law firm Alexander Morrison + Fehr, a California-based firm that jointly filed the lawsuit with the Chicago-based KJC Law Group, told the Sun-Times. "This is a fair pay act, and what we want to make sure is that journalists of color and women get paid fairly for similar experience that they have, and similar backgrounds, for their skill that they've actually demonstrated in this position." Chicago Tribune, Alden Global Capital and Tribune Publishing Co. are listed as the defendants in the lawsuit. They could not be immediately reached for comment. The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Madeline Buckley, a criminal justice reporter; Terrence James, a photojournalist; Stacey Wescott, a visual journalist; Colleen Kujawa, an editor; Deanese Williams, a senior deputy content editor; Darcel Rockett, a features reporter; and Christy Gutowski, a criminal justice reporter. The seven journalists are representing in the lawsuit more than 50 other women and Black employees of the newspaper. The lawsuit seeks back pay for the disparities in wages, along with a restructuring of the Tribune's compensation policies and practices. "One thing remains consistent across each section of the Chicago Tribune's news operation - women and African American employees are underpaid by several thousands of dollars a year compared to their male and white counterparts," the lawsuit states. "No legitimate factors account for the enormous, statistically significant pay gap that the Tribune has created and intentionally maintains." The newspaper also used diversity recruitment programs to hire women and minority journalists into temporary year-long positions at salaries "significantly less than their colleagues who performed the same work," the lawsuit said. Williams, a Black woman, has received three raises since she was hired by the Tribune in 2007 through one of the diversity recruitment programs, according to the lawsuit. Her work has contributed to multiple Illinois Press Association and other awards, and she was honored by the Tribune for her "outstanding professional performance." Williams was promoted several times throughout her tenure, most recently to deputy senior content editor in 2023, but is the second-lowest paid employee with that title, the lawsuit states. A 24-year-old early career editor is the only editor who earns less money than Williams, making $2,000 less than she does, the lawsuit states. James, who is the Tribune's only Black photojournalist, has earned one "significant" pay raise in his 31 years working at the Tribune, and earns less money than non-African American employees who perform similar work, the lawsuit states. Tribune employees have in the past raised concerns about unequal pay for minority journalists to its past and current owners, the lawsuit states. The lawsuit also claims the Tribune has "intentionally" hired minority journalists for positions at its six daily suburban publications, which pay less than the Chicago newspaper. "The concern I have is, if journalism is not in a fair place in terms of pay equity for women and minorities, then these people will not go into that profession. We might lose those important voices, precisely at a time where we need to hear these voices, where these voices can be drowned out," Morrison said. "This is about fairness; it's not about asking for extra money or just getting a raise because everybody needs more money." Tribune journalists also earlier this year went on 24-hour strike, joining hundreds of other Tribune Publishing employees in a nationwide action to demand management pay fair wages and not eliminate their 401(k) match benefits.[GN] CITGO PETROLEUM: Court Certifies "Marriage Penalty" ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- On May 16, a federal judge certified a class of more than 1,700 participants and beneficiaries in two of CITGO Petroleum Corporation's pension plans. This class certification ruling, along with last week's ruling largely dismissing CITGO's motion for summary judgement, paves the way for the class claims to move forward to trial. Estimated financial exposure to CITGO could well exceed $30 million. The lawsuit against CITGO alleges that the Houston-based gas and energy giant violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by failing to properly calculate joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") benefits for retired employees and imposing a "marriage penalty" that reduced their monthly pension payments. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that prior to 2018, CITGO's two pension plans utilized inaccurate mortality tables (from the 1970s) to determine the value of JSAs, resulting in married retirees consistently receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of a single-life annuity ("SLA") as required under ERISA. The lawsuit seeks to recover the underpayments, and to reform the CITGO Plans to fully comply with protections afforded by ERISA to pension plan participants and their beneficiaries. "We are very pleased the court granted class certification to more than 1,700 CITGO employees and pensioners in this important ERISA case," said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein's Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. "This ruling and the court's recent order denying summary judgment pave the way for the class claims to move forward to trial and affirm our confidence that our clients will prevail. Married retirees and their beneficiaries deserve to receive accurate pension payments after years of hard work and should not be shortchanged or subjected to a ‘marriage penalty.'" Just ten days ago, on May 6, the same court rejected CITGO's motion for summary judgment on three of four counts and partially denied the motion on the fourth count. Specifically, the court rejected CITGO's arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the basis of the statute of limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims in Counts 1 through 3, and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count 4. Further, the court rejected CITGO's argument that the plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court, stating that it was "not persuaded that requiring exhaustion would serve any useful purpose in this case." Finally, the court also held that plaintiffs' claims were sufficiently meritorious to proceed to trial and supported by expert testimony. The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al. (N.D. Ill.), was filed on August 3, 2021 in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. It was brought on behalf retirees in the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Salaried Employees Pension Plan and the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Hourly Employees Pension Plan who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity. This is one of six such "marriage penalty" ERSIA class actions the firm has recently filed against several of the largest companies in the United States, including AT&T, IBM, Intel, Luxottica, and Southern Company. About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs' law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people -- workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers -- working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sjodin Says --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SJODIN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00847 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserts claims on behalf of the Class for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, declaratory judgment, and common law invasion of privacy, and violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Customer Records Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected health information including, but not limited to, contact information (e.g., email address, phone number), date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license or other government identification, financial details (e.g., bank account and/or credit card details), health insurance information, medical records and information about medical history and/or associated conditions, and/or unique identifiers to associate individuals with City of Hope. Between September 19, 2023 and October 12, 2023, cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed and exfiltrated highly sensitive Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members which was being kept unprotected and unencrypted. As a result of Defendant's failures and the Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at a current and substantial imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and shall remain at risk for the rest of their lives, says the suit. City of Hope is a pioneer in cancer research, treatment and prevention and home to a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - 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 CLEARESULT CONSULTING: Dauch Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jason Dauch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEAResult Consulting Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01182 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 14, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11281-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. CLEAResult -- https://www.clearesult.com/ -- is the largest provider of energy efficiency, energy transition and energy sustainability solutions in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 499-6700 Email: GMaatman@duanemorris.com JARiley@duanemorris.com - and - Emilee N. Crowther, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Ste. 300 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 277-2256 Email: encrowther@duanemorris.com COMANCHE COUNTY HOSPITAL: Whitmore Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comanche County Hospital Authority. The case is styled as Lori Whitmore, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comanche County Hospital Authority d/b/a Comanche County Memorial Hospital, Case No. CJ-2024-235 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Comanche Cty., May 13, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Breach Of Agreement - Contract." Comanche County Memorial Hospital -- https://www.ccmhhealth.com/ -- is an acute care facility specializing in health care services including Emergency, Surgical, and Primary Care Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Alison, Esq. 223 S Detroit Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 CONTINUUM HEALTH: Dressel Sues Over Cyber-Attack and Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Dressel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONTINUUM HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC, Case 3:24-cv-06176 (D.N.J., May 15, 2024), is brought on behalf of citizens of all states in the United States who are the victims of a targeted, intentional cyber-attack on Defendant that allowed third party criminal hackers to access Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate patient data from approximately October 18, 2023 to October 19, 2023 (the "Class" and "Class Members"), publicly exposing the highly sensitive information and medical records of approximately 377,119 patients from Defendant's computer network ("the Data Breach"). Despite that Continuum became aware of the Data Breach by October 19, 2023, it failed to send notice to Plaintiff and the Class Members within 60 days as required by law. Incredibly, Continuum failed to notify Plaintiff of the Data Breach for more than 6 months from its discovery of the same. Continuum knowingly collected patient personally identifiable information ("PII"), and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") in confidence, and has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard that Private Information against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate security measures. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and private personal information--entrusted to Defendant, its officials, and agents--was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the Data Breach. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes name, Social Security number, date of birth, health insurance information, medical information, and phone number, other protected health information defined by HIPAA, and other Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses, including, but not limited to, a diminution in the value of their private and confidential information, the loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain with Defendant, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to a client of Continuum who shared her Private Information with Continuum. Continuum is a provider of health management and patient care coordination services to healthcare organizations and health insurers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janine L. Pollack, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (561) 232-6002 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 Email: jpollack@4-justice.com E-Service: eService@4-justice.com - and – Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Phone: (561) 232-6002 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 Email: lfeldman@4-justice.com E-Service: eService@4-justice.com - and - David J. George, Esq. Brittany L. Sackrin, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302 Lake Worth, FL 33467 Phone: (561) 232-6002 Email: dgeorge@4-justice.com bsackrin@4-justice.com E-Service: eService@4-justice.com COUNTRY LIFE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Country Life, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03048-DEH (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.desertessence.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. This case arises out of Country Life's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the services offered by Desertessence.com. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Country Life, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through Desertessence.com. Country Life, LLC controls and operates Desertessence.com in New York State and throughout the United States. Desertessence.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view skin, body, and hair care products, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[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 CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Sapan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC. The case is styled as Paul Sapan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01064-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CrossCountry Mortgage -- https://crosscountrymortgage.com/ -- offers mortgage lending services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. Justin Prato, Esq. PRATO AND REICHMAN APC 3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Phone: (619) 683-7971 Email: chrisr@prato-reichman.com justinp@prato-reichman.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Click et al. Suit Over FMLA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Click, Harvey Ferran, Nicholas Ingrodi, Brad Jackson, Jeremy Likes, Chris Straight, Antoine Thompson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00451 (M.D. Fla., MAY 7, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the Family Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiffs are former and current employees of Defendant who were allegedly subjected to FMLA violations. The Defendant allegedly engaged in a pattern and practice of curbing its employees' lawful use of FMLA leave by limiting and miscounting the amount of FMLA leave its employees may take, implementing an attendance policy which penalizes employees for taking FMLA leave, and disciplining and terminating employees who use FMLA leave on weekends and holidays. Plaintiffs seek back pay, monetary relief, other compensatory relief, and injunctive and declaratory relief for Defendant's conduct. Headquartered in Jacksonville FL, CSX Transportation, Inc. provides freight rail transportation services throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (757) 477-0991 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law CVS HEALTH: Druzgalski Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Clara Druzgalski, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 24STCV04032 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03975. In this action, Plaintiff alleges various injuries individually, and on behalf of similarly situated persons, as a result of allegedly receiving the Arexvy vaccine instead of the Abrysvo vaccine (collectively, "RSV vaccines"). As a result of these alleged injuries, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against CVS: Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Negligence, and Violation of California's Unfair Competition Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kristen Richer, Esq. Alexandra Ascione, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 Email: Kristen.Richer@btlaw.com Aascione@btlaw.com DELTA AIR: Iuliano Seeks to Void Security Fee Refund Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER IULIANO v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC, Case No. CACE-24-006370 (Fla. Cir. 17th Judicial, Broward Cty, May 7, 2024, May 7, 2024) is a class action seeking declaratory relief for Defendant’s alleged unlawful practice of retaining unused September 11 security fees. The Plaintiff purchased a non-refundable Delta ticket on or about November 18, 2023 for a flight that was set to depart on December 28, 2023. Plaintiff paid a total of $322.80 in fare, taxes, and fees, including the September 11 security fee. Before his departure date, Plaintiff canceled his flight and received a Delta eCredit covering the price of the flight, as well as taxes and fees, including the September 11 security fee. The eCredit must be used within one year after issuance. No portion of the fare, taxes, and fees Plaintiff paid was returned to his original form of payment. The Plaintiff demands declaratory relief to resolve a dispute as to whether Delta’s contract of carriage permits the company to retain the September 11 security fee in case of canceled non-refundable flights. To the extent any contract provision does permit that practice, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that such a provision violates federal law and is therefore void and unenforceable. Delta Air Lines is an American airline company headquartered in Atlanta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec H. Schultz, Esq. Ellen Rose Belfer, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 630-8304 E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com ebelfer@hilgersgraben.com DOLCE & GABBANA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delays in Delivery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tristan Greene of CoinTelegraph reports that a disgruntled customer has filed a class-action lawsuit against Italian fashion brand Dolce & Gabbana and digital assets platform UNXD after alleged delays in delivering nonfungible token (NFT) products caused the digital assets to lose 97% of their value. According to a report from Bloomberg, a customer identified as Luke Brown paid $6,000 for "DGFamily NFTs," a Dolce & Gabbana product combining digital and physical assets as privileges and experiences within the brand’s greater ecosystem. Class action The NFTs were allegedly delivered over a week late, during which their value plummeted by $5,800. A set of accompanying "outfits" for the NFTs, purportedly meant for display in the metaverse, was further delayed by 11 days after the initial delivery. Brown has filed a class-action suit on behalf of all customers who purchased the NFTs, alleging that Dolce & Gabbana and UNXD failed to deliver on promises made at the point of transaction. According to the report, the delivery delays occurred after Dolce & Gabbana failed to obtain approval for the accompanying assets from the UNXD NFT platform. It’s unclear at this time how many customers may have been affected by the alleged delays. An NFT industry concern This case highlights the ongoing struggle for companies, brands and marketers as the realm of physical goods, products, and assets transitions to hybridized digitization. A physical product, such as a fashionable clothing item, functions in a dynamically different market than that of a digital asset, often with little correlation to one another. Further complicating the matter, the Dolce & Gabbana NFTs were created on the Ethereum blockchain for the "D&G Metaverse." The Ethereum blockchain powers the world’s second most popular cryptocurrency, and as Cointelegraph reported, Dolce & Gabbana NFTs have sold for millions of dollars in the past. These facts could impact the class-action lawsuit if it moves forward. [GN] DOLLAR TREE: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Cinnamon Product Recalls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree is facing more legal fallout from cinnamon product recalls. Donna Bell filed the lawsuit in excess of $5 million against the discount retailer and cinnamon supplier Colonna Brothers, Inc. The lawsuit represents more than 100 shoppers. On March 6, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety alert informing grocers like Dollar Tree and Family Dollar that ground cinnamon products were contaminated with high levels of lead and should be taken off the shelves. The products listed in the safety alert included La Fiesta brand sold by La Superior and SuperMercados; Marcum brand sold by Save A Lot; MK brands sold by SF Supermarket; Swad brand which can be found at Patel Brothers; El Chilar brand sold by La Joya Morelense; and Supreme Tradition brand found at Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar said they pulled the cinnamon products from their shelves. The safety alert stems from the October 2023 recall of cinnamon applesauce pouches that led to almost 500 child illnesses in the U.S. At the time of the recall, the FDA executed a targeted survey of cinnamon products sold at discount stores. According to the lawsuit, the FDA collected and tested 75 samples from different retail locations and results showed lead concentration between 2.03 and 3.37 parts per million in the Supreme Tradition Ground Cinnamon product, which is hundreds of times more than the FDA's safe levels. The lawsuit also says manufacturer Colonna should have reasonable measures in place to test the safety of its products and that Dollar Tree is responsible for ensuring its products are safe for human consumption. Bell purchased the Supreme Tradition Ground Cinnamon in March of 2024 in the Bronx, N.Y., and the lawsuit says if she was aware of the existence of lead in the product, she would have not purchased it. Bell and the group claim they have suffered injury and have lost money due to the sale of the ground cinnamon product. Dollar Tree and Colonna are being charged with three counts: violation of New York General Business Laws 349 and 350 and unjust enrichment. Dollar Tree and manufacturer WanaBana are also facing a lawsuit because of an applesauce pouches recall late last year. Parents of a North Carolina family claim their children suffered from lead poisoning after consuming the applesauce and face a lifetime of treatment. A high level of chromium was found in WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit puree. As of May 14, Dollar Tree operates 8,277 locations in the U.S. according to ScrapeHero. [GN] EQUINIX LLC: Holman Sues for California Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD HOLMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQUINIX, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV438270 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff previously worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt shipping employee. Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment, Defendants committed numerous violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code, including among others, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked, and failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees. The Plaintiff seeks penalties, actual damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for Defendants' alleged violations. Based in San Jose, CA, Equinix LLC provides telephone voice and data communication services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Hyunjin Kim, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com hkim@moonlawgroup.com - and – Walter L. Haines, Esq. Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 203 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com ERNEST HEALTH: Fernandez Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ OVIDIO FERNANDEZ and BARBARA LAUDE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ERNEST HEALTH, INC., REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO, and REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF THE NORTHWEST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00973-E (N.D. Tex., April 22, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated consumers' sensitive protected health information and personally identifiable information provided to the Defendants. On or about March 29, 2024, the Defendants announced that they were the victim of a data security incident. The private information of 5,466 individuals is believed to have been exposed by the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unredacted private information was compromised due to the Defendants' negligent and/or careless, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. Ernest Health, Inc. is a network of rehabilitation and long-tern acute hospitals with locations throughout Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ESSEX PROPERTY: Vivoli Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL W. VIVOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., a Maryland Corporation; TROY WARNER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11484 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty, May 7, 2024), accuses the Defendants of unfair business practices and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This action arises from Defendants' alleged offensive debt collection activities against tenants, including Plaintiff, whereby Defendants falsely represent that they will be or have already reported tenants' disputed balances to credit reporting agencies. Additionally, Defendants allegedly make inconsistent and confusing demands upon tenants using confusing rent balance calculations that are designed to manufacture a basis to claim a disputed balance that does not actually exist. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants' conduct violates the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and constitutes unfair business practices, in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. Essex Property Trust, Inc. us a real estate investment trust based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Steven Gregor, Esq. GREGOR LAW OFFICES 3104 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 238-2700 Facsimile: (619) 330-4748 E-mail: sgregor@gregorlawoffices.com EVENT STAGING: Keller et al. Sue for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carole Keller, Maggie Price, and Mary Givens, all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Event Staging, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00288 (E.D. Va., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of labor law violations and retaliation. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid stagehands during productions but had no official title for their jobs. The Plaintiffs were also assigned in other departments performing other tasks, such as electrical work and scenic/carpentry work, with Plaintiffs also doing load-ins and load-outs at the beginning and end of productions. On multiple occasions, the Plaintiffs encountered issues with their pay. In particular, Defendant allegedly failed to properly compensate Plaintiffs for the hours that they actually worked, including those in excess of 40 hours. When Plaintiffs opposed Defendant's unlawful conduct, they were terminated by Defendant. The Plaintiffs now bring claims for Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay wages under the Virginia Wage Theft Act, and reprisal. Based in Virginia, Event Staging, Inc. is engaged in the business of staffing live events. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob M. Small, Esq. J. MADISON PLC 1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22101 Telephone: (703) 910-5062 Facsimile: (703) 910-5107 E-mail: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com EXCELL OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Farmer et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDE FARMER, JOSE L. SALINAS and RICARDO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXCELL OPERATING, INC., d/b/a EXCELL OPERATING COMPANY, INC., BULLZEYE OILFIELD SERVICE LLC, THOMAS L. SWAREK, MICHAEL BOOTHE, KEITH MAXEY, and ZACKRY MAXEY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00109 (S.D. Tex., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime. The Plaintiffs are current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants employed as Hourly, Day Rate, and Salaried Oilfield Workers who routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but were allegedly not paid overtime. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants are engaged in a practice of not compensating its non-exempt employees for off-the-clock work, including during meal-period breaks, as well as for all hours spent performing mandatory tasks such as preparing tools and loading materials and equipment prior to clocking in. The Defendants also do not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for all hours spent handling emails, phone calls, and/or texts with Defendants off the clock, say the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and other damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA. Excell Operating, Inc. is a trucking company based in Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Blayne Fisher, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Fields Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Fields, et al. v. Family Dollar Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02380 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses such meals, hotels, and transportation, and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfjmcpv from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Mull Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Mull v. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02272 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/h3spd8jm from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Sharp Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Sharp v. Family Dollar, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02376 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/kcjbhw6f from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Brown, et al. v. Family Dollar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02390 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kzuvazh from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Smith Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Smith, et al. v. Family Dollar Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02382 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers who had shopped in affected stores to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtfujc54 from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Whitney Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned Whitney v. Family Dollar Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02138 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action and all claims asserted are settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdezvn7u from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Robertson, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02378 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrcmm3ew from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Smith v. Family Dollar Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02375 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cned7ej from PacerMonitor.com. FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Croteau Sues Over Inadequate Data Security -------------------------------------------------------------- ALISON CROTEAU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01946 (E.D. Pa., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class members' private information from hackers. The Defendant experienced a data breach between February 14 and February 26, 2024, during which an unauthorized party accessed and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class members' highly sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers and account information that Defendant collected and maintained for its clients. The data breach occurred because of Defendant's alleged failure to implement adequate data security practices and properly monitor its computer network and systems. Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, says the suit. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, INC. (FBCS) is a debt collection agency based in Hatboro, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Sandercock, Esq. Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 357-1732 E-mail: nsandercock@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com FORWARD AIR: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks to Rescind Omni Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Rose of The Greenville Sun reports that the legal battle over the January merger of Greeneville-based Forward Air Corporation and Omni Logistics continues with a class action lawsuit filed May 15 in Greeneville. Plaintiffs Michael Roberts of Greeneville, a former senior vice president of the corporation, and Cambria County Employees Retirement System in Pennsylvania are asking the court to rescind the merger and/or award an unspecified amount of damages to the class of Forward Air's public shareholders when the merger closed. The plaintiffs claim Forward Air, its board members and then-CEO Thomas Schmitt violated Tennessee law by failing to provide shareholders with the opportunity to vote on the merger of the transportation companies. In addition to Forward Air and Schmitt, defendants named in the complaint are: Ronald W. Allen, Ana Amicarella, Valerie A. Bonebrake, C. Robert Campbell, R. Craig Carlock, G. Michael Lynch, George S. Mayes Jr., Chitra Nayak, Javier Polit, and Laurie A. Tucker, all members of the Forward Air board of directors. The 35-page complaint filed in the Chancery Court of the 3rd Judicial District in Greene County recalls when Forward Air announced on Aug. 10, 2023, that it was merging with Omni Logistics LLC, based in Dallas, Texas, for $3.2 billion. The complaint states that the 35% amount of equity issued by Forward Air to Omni in the merger exceeds a 20% threshold that state law requires for a shareholder vote. The complaint also mentions a restructuring as part of the merger in which Forward Air transferred all of its operating assets to a newly registered Delaware limited liability company, Clue Opco LLC, an umbrella partnership. As a result, Forward Air has been converted from an operating company to a holding company. As a part of the Merger, Forward Air entered into voting agreements with Omni's principal owners, Ridgemont Equity Partners and EVE Partners, LLC, the complaint explains. "Pursuant to these agreements, Ridgemont and EVE (together with certain other legacy Omni shareholders) are required to vote their shares in favor of the directors nominated by the Director Defendants, and against any other nominees," the complaint states. This move "is nothing but a smokescreen created by Defendants in an effort to evade the shareholder vote mandated by section 48-21-104," of state law, the complaint states. "There is no rational justification for depriving shareholders of a vote on the Merger, and the Director Defendants' manipulative conduct in doing so was contrary to their fiduciary duties," the complaint states. "By deliberately depriving Forward Air's shareholders of their voting franchise, the Forward Air Board acted disloyally, in bad faith, and in violation of Tennessee law, in breach of their fiduciary duties." Also, "There is overwhelming evidence that Forward Air's shareholders would have rejected the merger had they been given the opportunity to vote on it," the complaint continues. "Perhaps most damningly for Forward Air, Scott Niswonger -- who founded Forward Air in 1990 and served as its CEO until 2003 -- resigned from the Board in protest before the Board met to vote on and approve the Merger on Aug. 10, 2023. Niswonger resigned in part due to Forward Air depriving its shareholders of a vote," the complaint continues. In addition to rescinding the merger and/or other damages, the plaintiffs are seeking attorneys' fees and costs in favor of the class and "further equitable or other relief as the Court deems just and proper." According to the complaint, Roberts currently holds 5,000 shares of Forward Air stock, and Cambria County currently holds 585 shares. The complaint notes that Forward Air's stock closed at $110 per share the day before the Merger was announced and "plummeted" over $32 per share to $77.65 per share within a day of the announcement. By Jan. 25, 2024, the date the merger closed, Forward Air's stock had fallen to $46.87 per share, and as of March 20, 2024, the stock "sagged" to below $27 per share. The stock closed May 16, at $15.40 per share. [GN] FVP CENTURY: Pardo Sues Over Architectural Barriers in Property --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. FVP CENTURY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-21758-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at Defendant's commercial property. She had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it is not continuous and accessible. In addition, the property's ramps do not have ADA-compliant handrails, says the suit. FVP CENTURY, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property at 1665 West 68th Street, Hialeah, Florida, 33014. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego,Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com GAP INC: Carbajal Sues Over Alleged Use of Tracker Pixels --------------------------------------------------------- Ivonne Carbajal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and PaeDae, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, dba Gimbal, operating as Infillion, Case No. 2:24-cv-01056-ROS (D. Ariz., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act by procuring customers' communication service records without their consent. The Plaintiff and Class members are recipients of Gap's marketing emails that allegedly utilize and embed Infillion's tracker to obtain, collect, record, and store Plaintiff and Class members' information and communication service records. According to Plaintiff, the hidden embedded email tracking pixels are intended to monitor customers' behavior and to paint a uniquely identifiable detailed picture of each recipient in order to create targeted advertising campaigns for The Gap. The Defendants allegedly procured the communication service records of Plaintiff and Class members through deceptive means and without their authorization, in violation of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act, says the suit. The Gap, Inc. is an American retail group based in San Francisco, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Michelle R. Matheson, Esq. MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C. 15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: (480) 889-8951 E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt Owners to Receive Settlement Checks -------------------------------------------------------------- Chevy Bolt owners are eligible for settlement checks as part of a $150 million class-action settlement with General Motors and South Korean industrial group LG over faulty batteries. According to documents filed in a Michigan court, Bolt EV owners who installed software before Dec. 31, 2023 that had been designed to fix the battery issue will be eligible to receive a check for up to $1,400. Customers who sold their Bolt or terminated their leases before the software remedy was released -- or ones who received a replacement battery -- will receive a $700 check at minimum. "GM, LG Energy Solution and LG Electronics have agreed to a settlement with plaintiffs to resolve class action litigation related to the Bolt EV battery recall," GM said in an emailed statement to Reuters. "As a result, Bolt owners who received a battery replacement or who have installed the latest advanced diagnostic software may qualify for compensation," the company said. GM began recalling Bolt EVs after receiving multiple complaints about the LG-branded batteries catching fire. The recall effort ultimately cost GM nearly $2 billion. [GN] GLOBAL CORD: Gestion Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------- MW GESTION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL CORD BLOOD CORPORATION, TING ZHENG, BING CHUEN (ALBERT) CHEN, YUEN KAM, MARK DA-JIAN CHEN, JENNIFER J. WENG, DR. KEN LU, JACK CHOW, JACKY CHENG, GOLDEN MEDITECH HOLDINGS LIMITED, GOLDEN MEDITECH STEM CELLS (BVI) COMPANY LIMITED, GM PRECISION MEDICINE (BVI) LIMITED, GOLDEN MEDITECH PRECISION MEDICINE LIMITED, GOLDEN MEDITECH (BVI) COMPANY LIMITED, and KPMG HUAZHEN LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03071 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Global Cord securities between June 4, 2019 and May 3, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. On April 29, 2022, after the market closed, in a Form 6-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Global Cord announced that it had entered into a Material Definitive Agreement to acquire Cellenkosfor over $1 billion, including $664 million in cash and 114 million Global Cord shares -- roughly the same number of the Company's shares that were already outstanding. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 Yuen 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, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Global Cord Blood Corporation provides umbilical cord blood storage and ancillary services in the Beijing Municipality, Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang Province of the People's Republic of China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael Grunfeld, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. Brandon M. Cordovi, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com bcordovi@pomlaw.com GOYARD ECOM: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOYARD ECOM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02987-AMD-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.goyard.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on March 29, 2024, to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers which is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. GOYARD ECOM, LLC offers a range of products including tote bags, trunk bags, travel bags, and small leather goods.[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 GREEN DIAMOND: Valentine Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS VALENTINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00620 (W.D. Wash., May 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons' private information it collected and maintained. Green Diamond detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on June 27, 2023. Its investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files between June 26 and June 27, 2023. However, Green Diamond waited until April 2024 to notify the public that they were at risk. Green Diamond failed to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, says the suit. Based in Seattle, WA, Green Diamond is a forest products company that owns and manages working forests in nine states throughout the western and southern United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com GREEN ESCAPE: Tamayo Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- Gretys Tamayo and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. The Green Escape LLC, Kimberly Fore, and Scott Fore, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00238 (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime hours and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Tamayo as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly nursery employee from approximately March 25, 2024, to April 7, 2024, or 2 weeks. Although the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, she was paid only for 40 regular hours. In addition, Plaintiff was fired due to her complaint for unpaid overtime hours, says the suit. Located in Eustis, FL, Green Escape is a nursery company providing rare exotic plants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com HANDI-FOIL CORP: Hood Alleges Misleading "Made in the USA" Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIGETTE HOOD, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANDI-FOIL CORP., HANDI-FOIL ALUMINUM CORP., and JIFFY-FOIL CORP, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02373-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff alleging violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and unjust enrichment against Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants routinely misleads consumers and violates the law by inaccurately labeling and advertising its aluminum consumer products as "Made in the USA" and "Made in USA" when the products are not completely processed domestically or made of materials sourced in the United States of America. The Defendants make deceptive claims and misrepresentations on their product labels, falsely implying that the products are American, made in the United States, of American components. Consumers rely on these representations, paying premium prices because they believe Defendants' products are made in the United States from American materials and are therefore more valuable, says the suit. Handi-Foil Corp. is a privately owned manufacturer of recyclable aluminum products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95821 Telephone: (916) 616-2936 E-mail: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Domenica M. Russo, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: bwise@peifferwolf.com drusso@peifferwolf.com HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Faces Kothari Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------- VIRAL KOTHARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBOR DIVERSIFIED, INC., CHRISTINE R. DEISTER, and LIAM MACKAY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00556-WCG (E.D. Wis., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Harbor Diversified securities between May 10, 2022 and March 29, 2024. The Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements about Harbor Diversified's business, operations, and prospects. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose that Harbor Diversified's financial statements from May 9, 2022 to the present were misstated due to improper revenue recognition and that the company lacked adequate internal controls. When the truth emerged, the price of Harbor Diversified stock fell, causing significant losses and damages to Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief pursuant the Securities Exchange Act. Harbor Diversified, Inc. is a holding company based in Appleton, WI. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com HORTUS NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hortus NYC Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02971-VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.hortusnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. This case arises out of Hortus NYC's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the services offered by Hortusnyc.com. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to Hortusnyc.com, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Hortus NYC, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through Hortusnyc.com. Hortus NYC Corp. controls and operates Hortusnyc.com in New York State and throughout the United States. Hortusnyc.com is a commercial website and online platform that provides Asian cuisine offered by Defendant in connection with its physical locations.[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 INARI MEDICAL: Faces Michiana Class Suit Over 21% Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHIANA AREA ELECTRICAL WORKERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INARI MEDICAL, INC., WILLIAM HOFFMAN, ANDREW HYKES, and MITCH C. HILL, Case No. 1:24-cv-03686 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the common stock of Inari between Feb. 24, 2022 through Feb. 28, 2024, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants. On Feb. 29, 2024, Inari shocked investors when the Company disclosed it received a civil investigative demand by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") over certain payments to healthcare professionals relating to meals and consulting services, and warned that "depending on the outcome of the investigation, there may be a material impact on our business, results of operations, or financial condition." In response to the disclosure, analysts that closely follow the Company immediately reacted negatively and downgraded the stock, the suit claims. As a result of the DOJ investigation disclosure and the negative analyst reactions, Inari's share price plummeted over $12 per share or 21% the very next trading day -- from a closing price of $58.26 per share on Feb. 28, 2024 to $46.12 per share on Feb. 29, 2024 -- wiping out approximately $700 million in market capitalization in one trading day. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants repeatedly touted Inari's financial results and the success of its product sales, but failed to disclose that these numbers were inflated by bribes and other improper and illegal payments to healthcare providers, the suit asserts. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the large decline in the market value of the Company’s common stock, the Plaintiff MAEW and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit adds. Plaintiff MAEW is a union pension fund based in Lansing, Michigan that manages all health, pension, and money purchase plan benefits that the Michiana area electrical workers receive through collective bargaining. Inari is a medical device company that specializes in developing, manufacturing and commercializing catheter-based technologies for treating venous thromboembolism.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Berger, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Timothy Clark B. Dauz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (610) 722-8501 E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com cmoyna@gelaw.com tdauz@gelaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Duran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- LILYBETH DURAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., Case No. 1:24-cv-03514 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of inadequate data security which led to a data breach. The Plaintiff was a member of an employee-sponsored retirement fund, for which Defendant served as a payment agent, between 2016 and 2024. Plaintiff's personal identifying information was compromised in a data breach that occurred between August 26, 2021 and February 23, 2024 but was only discovered by Defendant on February 26, 2024. The Defendant notified affected individuals about the incident on or about April 18, 2024. The data breach was allegedly caused by Defendant's failure to implement adequate data security measures and follow industry standard practices necessary to protect against unauthorized access to customer PII. Defendants also allegedly underplayed the breach's severity and obfuscated the nature of the Breach. Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings claims for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. JP Morgan Chase & Co is a multinational finance company based in New York City, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6705 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 738-6299 E-mail: JSedgh@forthepeople.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com JYanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042-2754 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com LEPAGE BAKERIES: Court Defines "Transportation Workers" Exemption ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer L. Muse, writing for Honigman, reports that Wonder Bread, Butterscotch Krimpets, and Jumbo Honey Buns were featured in a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. But delicious baked goods were not the order of the day -- rather, the Court held that a transportation worker does not need to work in the transportation industry in order to be exempt from arbitrating their disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). So, a distributor who transports Wonder Bread, Butterscotch Krimpets, and Jumbo Honey Buns also cannot be compelled to arbitrate their claims under the FAA. A Tale of Differing Rationales The Court's opinion in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC resolved a circuit split between the First Circuit and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding the interpretation of the "transportation workers" exemption. Generally, the FAA provides that arbitration agreements are "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." A special exception exists for "contracts of employment of seaman, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Workers who fall into this category of employees cannot be compelled under the FAA to arbitrate their claims with companies. Two franchisees owned the rights to distribute the various packaged baked goods in certain parts of Connecticut. These franchisees, however, brought a putative class action against the company, alleging various wage and hour violations under state and federal law, among other things. The company moved to dismiss or compel arbitration on the grounds that both franchisees had signed contracts requiring them to arbitrate their claims individually. Both the District Court and the Second Circuit found that these arbitration agreements were valid, but for different reasons. The District Court found that the franchisees had a "much broader scope of responsibility" under the agreements, which suggested that they were not principally truck drivers. The Second Circuit held that the franchisees were in the "baking industry," not the transportation industry, and as a result, were not exempt from the FAA's reach. After the appeal was decided, however, the Supreme Court held, in a different case, that "a 'class of workers' is properly defined based on what a worker does for an employer, 'not what [the employer] does generally." The Second Circuit then reheard the franchisees claims, but stated that to qualify under the exemption, the industry must "peg its charges chiefly to the movement of goods or passengers," and the revenue coming from that movement is the predominant source of revenue for the industry. However, the Second Circuit's decision conflicted with other decisions from the First Circuit, and the Supreme Court elected to hear the case. The Supreme Court Weighs In In assessing the Second Circuit's opinion, the Supreme Court asked the question: "Does a pizza delivery company derive its revenue mainly from pizza or delivery?" The question highlighted the difficulty in the Second Circuit's test, which would lead to discovery to review a company's revenue models before deciding whether or not the dispute should be subject to arbitration. Citing well-established precedent, the Court affirmed its prior position, finding that "a transportation worker is one who is 'actively' 'engaged in the transportation' of . . . goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce." Transportation workers, whether in the baking industry or the transportation industry, are all exempt from the FAA's requirement to arbitrate claims. Differences in the FLSA's Transportation Worker Exemption Wage and hour enthusiasts are familiar with the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) exemption that applies to certain transportation workers. Under the Motor Carrier exemption, certain drivers, driver's helpers, loaders and mechanics are exempt from the FLSA's requirements, as the Secretary of Transportation establishes qualifications and maximum hours of service for those workers. Similar to the interpretation of the FAA, the transportation involved in the employee's duties must be in interstate or foreign commerce. But the employer must be a motor carrier or private motor carrier under that law. While a truck driver for a bakery may otherwise fall under the FLSA's motor carrier exemption, that truck driver would still be subject to the FLSA because the driver is not engaged by a motor carrier. The driver for the bakery could be subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA, but would not be required to arbitrate any disputes regarding those requirements under the FAA. The Bottom Baked-Good Line Ultimately, companies should curtail their use of arbitration with any worker who is actively engaged in transporting goods has executed one, regardless of what industry the company is in -- be it baked goods, televisions, or passengers. In addition, companies should carefully consider who it asks to transport those goods, in order to avoid losing out on the protections that a well-drafted arbitration provision can provide -- including a waiver of class or collective actions. [GN] LOVO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Voice Theft ------------------------------------------------- Winston Cho of The Hollywood Reporter reports that voiceover actor Paul Skye Lehrman was at his friend's house in 2022 when a YouTube video was pulled up from a channel called Military News about Russia's advance into Ukraine. He immediately recognized the voice as his own, though he never contracted with the channel operator for use of his likeness. "It was my voice dictating the conflict and talking about weapons," Lehrman says. "These are words I never said." A year later, he was on his way to a doctor's appointment when he says he again stumbled upon his voice in a podcast about Hollywood's dual strikes in which a generative artificial intelligence text-to-speech tool was used to answers questions about the dangers of the technology. That's when he and his wife Linnea Sage, also a voiceover actor who suspects her voice was stolen in a similar manner, reached out to an attorney. On May 16, they sued Berkeley-based AI startup LOVO in a proposed class action filed in New York federal court accusing the company of misappropriating their voices, as well as those of A-list talent such as Scarlett Johansson, Ariana Grande and Conan O'Brien. It's believed to the first lawsuit against an AI firm over the use of likenesses to train an AI system and marks a growing rift between creators and companies alleged to indiscriminately hoover troves of data to power their technology. The lawsuit seeks to represent other voiceover artists who believe their voices were misappropriated by LOVO, which didn't respond to a request for comment. It also looks to obtain a court order blocking the company from continuing to undercut their work. The actors join a growing list of rights holders that include authors, artists and publications who've taken to court over what they argue is the unauthorized and uncompensated theft of their works and likenesses to fuel a multibillion dollar industry. SAG-AFTRA general counsel Jeffrey Bennett says the misconduct alleged in the lawsuit is "the type of thing we're going to see more of as people fail to understand that there are rights that exist in voices." The union maintains that training AI systems on members' likenesses without consent is a violation of their rights. The lawsuit, which centers on an alleged violation of New York's right of publicity law, says LOVO sells its services using "stolen property" and falsely "represents that it has the legal right to market these voices" when it doesn't. In 2020, Lehrman was contacted by an unidentified user, who he later learned was a LOVO employee, on freelance services platform Fiverr to provide voiceover services, according to the complaint. When he inquired further, he was allegedly told that his voice would be "used for academic research purposes only." Lerhman, who was paid $1,200, was assured in another message that it "will not be used for anything else." But two years later, the lawsuit claims that he recognized his voice on the YouTube channel called Military News, which has more than 336,000 subscribers, on a video about Russian weapons. "Then, on or about June 13, 2023, Mr. Lehrman heard his voice being used on a podcast episode of ‘Deadline Strike Talk,'" the complaint, which notes that he wasn't compensated for the use, states. According to the complaint, LOVO marketed his allegedly misappropriated voice as part of its subscription service under the stage name "Kyle Snow." The lawsuit states, "His voice was the default voice for the software; his voice was also touted as one of the five best text-to-speech voices, and it was used to advertise and explain the product." Sage, a voiceover artist of 14 years known for her work in Marvel video games, was similarly offered a job on Fiverr in 2019 to produce test scripts for radio ads. Like Lerhman, she was told that her voice "will only be consumed internally, so will not require rights of any sort," the lawsuit says. But in 2023, Sage alleges she discovered that LOVO had been using her voice as part of its subscription business under the name "Sally Coleman." While LOVO claims that its AI system was trained on thousands of voices, the lawsuit claims that the voices of "Kyle Snow" and "Sally Coleman" are distinctly those of Lehrman and Sage respectively. "The voices of other LOVO voice options are undoubtedly the voices of other class Plaintiffs who neither gave their authorization to use their voice – for either teaching Genny, use by LOVO, or sale by LOVO as part of its service – and were never properly compensated," writes Steve Cohen of Pollock Cohen, a lawyer for the actors, in the complaint. Lehrman, who has over a decade of experience as a voiceover artist under his belt and is best known for his roles in NBC's New Amsterdam CBS's Blue Bloods, estimates that he's seen a decline of roughly 50 percent in his work since last year. He stresses that the issue is not only that he's getting less job opportunities but the "degradation of my reputation." "My voice is literally saying things I wouldn't say with brands I wouldn't work with in places I wouldn't want to be placed," he explains. "In addition, I don't have control of the nuance of the artistic delivery." Sage's concerns are rooted in potentially being displaced from Hollywood altogether with the rise of AI voice tools. If misappropriation of her voice is allowed to continue from companies like LOVO, she warns "99 percent of the work that voiceover artists do will be replaced by AI voices." "I haven't made it big, but I've been working with so many other hard workers in this industry for my whole adult life," she adds. For SAG-AFTRA, Bennett says this lawsuit "puts companies on notice that you need to know what rights you're getting and what you want to get." He urges members not to accept overbroad contract language handing over rights in perpetuity. "Now, we live in world where we can clone somebody's voice and likeness," Bennet explains. "Those overbroad provisions are incredibly dangerous now. You've potentially given up rights and consented to be cloned." Due to the rise of AI services that allow users to replicate actors' likenesses, the union has been advocating for a federal right of publicity law. There are currently no federal laws covering the use of AI to mimic someone's voice. A patchwork of state right of publicity laws has filled the void, but there's little recourse in states that have not passed such statutes. "The most significant thing to me about a federal voice and likeness law is the creation of intellectual property right at federal level of voice and likeness," Bennett says. "If there are IP rights at the federal level, you've given yourself the ability to go after online instances of use and demand that it come down." While the class action seeks to represent talent whose voices were used to train LOVO's AI system, as well as those whose voices were misappropriated, it has the potential to expand to A-list talent. The company also promotes its services using "barely-disguised images and names" of celebrities, such as "Ariana Venti," "Barack Yo Mama" and "Cocoon O'Brien." The company advertises to users that they can "clone any voice," though it qualifies that they "cannot use this cloned voice for imitation of celebrities, so only use this tool for personal entertainment purposes." [GN] MDL 3032: Settlement in Pest Infestation Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation, MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million. The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.; Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith, Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha "Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of customers of Family Dollar. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers, including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis, Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202 distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in Arkansas. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October 2021, prompting an FDA investigation. On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents. The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the affected stores. After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge, Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022). Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief against Family Dollar. By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court, and thus, was not transferred to the MDL. On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement. Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000 pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement Class Representatives depositions. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25 Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023, the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30, 2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023, Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL Settlement. A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation of rights against double recovery. On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights. On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This submission increased the period in which settlement class members may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement Class. On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the members of the Settlement Class. On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No objections were received, and only 25 class members requested exclusion. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Settlement Agreement Terms The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made" settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e) will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted. In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the Arkansas Case. Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to consumers through this Settlement. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members using a multi-pronged campaign. The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted the success of the notice program. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter the Court's previous conclusions. For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of the appointment of the Class Representatives. There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement. Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund. Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the prevailing rate in the community for similar services. The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was spent on each aspect of the case. Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates charged here are reasonable. Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought into compliance with this Court's Local Rules. The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and court fees. Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court awards $247,589.77 in expenses. The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling $44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull, Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the representative's level of involvement in the case. Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent with the outlined terms. Conclusion The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and certifies the following Settlement Class: All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020, through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from this Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007). All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject to all of these provisions. For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request for expenses is granted. The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8nts37 from PacerMonitor.com. MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Chappell Suit Over Consumer Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CHAPPELL, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a New Jersey corporation, and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, a German corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01989-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of consumer fraud arising from Defendants' failure to disclose a wheel configuration defect. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all persons in Nevada and the United States who purchased or leased any model year 2021-present S580 Sedan vehicles equipped with 21" AMG V-multispoke wheel configuration marketed, sold, designed, and manufactured by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that the Class vehicles' wheels were defective, causing tire degradation that requires costly repairs and replacements. Defendants allegedly knew of the wheel configuration defect but actively concealed it from consumers, denying them coverage for the said defect. The wheel configuration defect is material as it poses a serious safety concern and could result in significant and unexpected repair costs for consumers, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings claims for breach of express warranty, violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of common law implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty, breach of express and implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged violations. Headquartered in Georgia, Mercedes-Benz USA markets, distributes, and sells Mercedes-branded automobiles and other motor vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel James Heber, Esq. HEBER LAW FIRM LLC 3355 Lenox Road NE, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 905-8470 Facsimile: (470) 805-2016 E-mail: nathan@heberfirm.com - and - Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura E. Goolsby, Esq. Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com NATIONAL HEALTH: Precioso et al. Sue over Unlawful Labor Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------- NERISSA PRECIOSO, JAN VINCENT AUSTRIA, PATRICK BORJA, LIZALYNN CABRAL, JOY CHUA, MARIE JODEL MONTALVO, and VINCENT ZAULDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION, JEFFREY R. SMITH, and MARIA WONG; INFINITY CARE PARTNERS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00561 (M.D. Tenn., May 6, 2024) seeks for damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and other remedies for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Tennessee Human Trafficking Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and other federal and state law. When the Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses began work, National Health Corporation (NHC) did not provide proper training, staffing, equipment, and other resources needed for them to do their jobs safely and professionally. The Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses were often subjected to discriminatory, illegal, and dangerous conditions that threatened their own and their patients' safety and health. In addition, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses the required prevailing wage corresponding to the skill level of the work the Plaintiffs were required to perform. In addition, NHC materially misrepresented the terms and condition of Plaintiffs' and other Filipino nurses' employment on the applications with the U.S. Department of Labor by underreporting Plaintiffs' and other Filipino nurses' education and experience, the positions Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses would fill, and/or the NHC locations where Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses would work, says the suit. Headquartered in Tennessee, NHC owns and operates over 150 residential medical facilities and home-health agencies in at least eight states, including nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospice agencies, homecare agencies, and behavioral health hospitals. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caraline E. Rickard, Esq. Curt M. Masker, Esq. RICKARD MASKER, PLC 810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314 Nashville, TN 37228 Telephone: (615) 200-8389 Facsimile: (615) 821-0632 E-mail: caraline@maskerfirm.com curt@maskerfirm.com - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. Justin M. Scott, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT, LLP 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com jscott@radfordscott.com NEW SOUTH WALES: Strip Search Class Action Trial Date Set 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- Redfern Legal Centre reports that a trial date has been set by the NSW Supreme Court for the landmark strip search class action that will challenge the legality of strip searches conducted by NSW Police at music festivals over a six-year period. The group proceeding, brought by Slater and Gordon Lawyers and Redfern Legal Centre, will begin on May 5 next year (2025) and is expected to run for four weeks. Setting of the trial date follows an attempt by the NSW government's legal representatives to have the case thrown out by filing an unsuccessful application to dismiss the case over claims of insufficient common issues between those who were strip searched. Redfern Legal Centre senior police accountability solicitor, Samantha Lee, said the government appeared to be continuing its attempts to prolong proceedings by recently advising that a strike-out application would be made in relation to exemplary damages being sought against NSW police for systemic issues related to strip searches. "The setting of a hearing date places further pressure on the government to decide whether it will fight young people all the way to a hearing or acknowledge the wrong that the invasive and harmful practice of strip searches has perpetrated and pursue mediation," Ms Lee said. The class action was filed in July 2022. Lead plaintiff Raya Meredith alleges she was unlawfully strip-searched by NSW Police at the Splendour in the Grass music festival in Byron Bay in 2018. Slater and Gordon Lawyers and Redfern Legal Centre are jointly running the class action on behalf of hundreds of other festivalgoers who allege their strip searches by police between 2016 and 2022 constituted unlawful acts, including assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Class Actions Associate Meg Lessing, from Slater and Gordon, said the trial date marked an important step towards obtaining justice for group members. "In addition to the trial date being set, Justice Garling has ordered that police produce the contact details of everyone searched by police at relevant music festivals so they can be informed about their potential rights," Ms Lessing said. "We encourage anybody who thinks they may be a group member in these proceedings to register on the Slater and Gordon website to ensure that they obtain updates about the case moving forward and any active steps they may need to take to make a claim. "We are looking forward to the court determining important legal issues at trial so that people who have had their legal rights infringed by police can be properly compensated." [GN] NOVO NORDISK: King Law Investigates Ozempic Side Effects -------------------------------------------------------- Egle Kristopaityte of Healthnews reports that class action lawsuit alleges that manufacturers of Ozempic and similar drugs didn't adequately warn the users about potential side effects. The lawsuit could be filed as soon as summer 2024, according to a law firm. Ozempic and other novel type 2 diabetes drugs that belong to a class called GLP-1 agonists have been making the headlines for helping lose up to 20% of body weight. As many of these drugs are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for weight loss, some patients seeking to slim their waists use the medications off-label. However, with the increasing use -- 12% of American adults say they have ever taken a GLP-1 agonist -- more and more users report experiencing severe side effects. The King Law firm is currently investigating 117 lawsuits against Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic, and Eli Lilly, the maker of Mounjaro. Plaintiffs say they weren't warned of the consequences of using these medications, which include bowel injuries like gastroparesis (stomach paralysis), gastrointestinal obstruction, and ileus. Gastroparesis is a condition where the stomach is unable to empty food normally and can cause heartburn, nausea, and vomiting. Gastrointestinal obstruction and ileus both involve the intestine being unable to push food and waste out of the body. The defendants say that intestinal issues as side effects of these drugs were well known, including to doctors, who had an obligation to inform the patients. In September 2023, the FDA added a new warning to the Ozempic label regarding the increased risk of ileus, calling it a serious but rare side effect. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and constipation are the most common side effects of Ozempic, according to the drug label. It also warns that the drug delays gastric emptying and can increase the risk of pancreatitis and acute kidney injury, among other conditions. However, there is currently a disagreement over what should be required to file a lawsuit: defendants seek plaintiffs to undergo a gastric emptying study, while the plaintiffs' lawyers argue that a doctor's diagnosis of these conditions should be sufficient, at least in the early stages of a lawsuit. The lawsuit points to the lack of long-term data Additionally, there are 87 personal injury lawsuits for gastroparesis, ileus and intestinal blockage or obstruction in multidistrict litigation before Judge Gene E.K. Pratter in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the Lawsuit Information Center. The plaintiffs claim the drug labels do not adequately warn of potential severe injuries related to the drugs despite ongoing use and reported adverse effects. Additionally, the complaint questions the safety of GLP-1 agonists due to the lack of long-term safety studies, as the longest study only extended to two years. What is known about Ozempic side effects? A 2022 systematic review associated the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists with an increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when taken at higher, for longer durations, and for the purpose of weight loss. Research from 2023 associated the medications with an elevated risk of stomach paralysis, pancreatitis, and bowel obstruction in people without diabetes who use these drugs for weight loss. However, type 2 diabetes patients using GLP-1 agonists are not at a higher risk of pancreatic cancer compared to those who use insulin only, according to a study published in JAMA Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology. A 2024 study linked the use of GLP-1 agonists with rare but severe psychiatric events, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Another recent study found that people who use GLP-1 agonists are more likely to be dispensed with antidepressants. However, it does not prove that Ozempic raises depression risk. After a thorough investigation, the European Medicines Agency concluded that the available evidence does not support a causal association between GLP-1 agonists and suicidal and self-injurious thoughts and actions. The conclusions echoed the findings of a similar preliminary review by the FDA. People using GLP-1 agonists may be at an increased risk of thyroid cancer, as stated on the Ozempic label, although the evidence is inconclusive. The class action lawsuits over Ozempic and other drugs' side effects may take several years to settle. Meanwhile, if you take GLP-1 agonists, discuss all new symptoms with your healthcare provider. [GN] PACIFIC STEEL: Bid to Vacate Case Deadlines in Berber Terminated ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berber v. Pacific Steel Group, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order terminating the parties' stipulation to vacate case deadlines, in light of the Court's ruling at the May 7, 2024, Case Management Conference to stay the class certification briefing schedule until further notice. The nature of suit states Labor/Management Relations. Pacific Steel is a construction company.[CC] PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Faces New Class Action From Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Jean Clement of Seattle Times reports that Seattle-area chain Pagliacci Pizza stands accused of failing to properly reimburse its delivery drivers for automobile expenses, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court. This comes three years after the company settled another class-action suit for $3.75 million that included similar mileage reimbursement claims. "Pagliacci did not change its practices with respect to driver reimbursements after that settlement in 2021," according to the new allegations. The new lawsuit alleges that Pagliacci paid delivery drivers a set amount for each delivery, regardless of distance, rather than on a per-mile basis, resulting in insufficient reimbursement to cover drivers' costs. The suit further alleges that the gap between the company's payment for mileage under this policy and the actual cost incurred by drivers was large enough that it sometimes resulted in pay below the legal minimum wage. The individual plaintiff on the suit "raised concerns" about the policy throughout 2023, and in April 2024, Pagliacci began paying delivery drivers on the per-mile basis, the filings say. But during the three-year period leading up to April 2024, according to the suit, Pagliacci reimbursed drivers between $1.54 and $1.62 per delivery, while the IRS mileage reimbursement rate over that three-year period ranged from 56 cents per mile to 67 cents per mile. The suit also notes that costs for gas and auto insurance in Western Washington exceed nationwide averages, and that delivery drivers incur higher costs for repairs and related expenses than the average driver, upon which the IRS estimate is based. "We currently reimburse our drivers at the IRS maximum for all miles they drive," Pagliacci Pizza co-owner Matt Galvin said. "While there is no Washington state regulation specifically requiring reimbursement for delivery miles, we continually strive to ensure our policies are fair and supportive of our crew." The lawsuit alleges that because workers were denied full reimbursement of costs necessarily incurred in performing their jobs, Pagliacci was in violation of state minimum wage and wage rebate law. Drivers at branches of the chain in Seattle would also be ensured full reimbursement of such costs under Seattle's Wage Theft Ordinance. The individual plaintiff in the suit estimates his wages were lessened by more than $1,000 per year by Pagliacci's alleged failure to fully reimburse automobile expenses. The company employs more than 200 drivers, Galvin said. "We take all concerns seriously and are committed to addressing any claims thoroughly," he said. Wage theft is the failure of employers to pay employees what they're legally owed. It happens to workers of all stripes, but a Seattle Times report last month showed that no industry generates more wage theft complaints in Washington than food service. American workers who claim lost wages can file private lawsuits or complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor, while the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries handles complaints at the state level. In Seattle, workers can file with the Office of Labor Standards, which prioritizes investigations in industries like food, construction and health care that are rife with labor standards violations. Washington restaurant workers filed more than 3,000 wage complaints with L&I from 2018 to 2022, The Times verified by a public records request. (Data covering last year was not available at the time of publication.) National labor experts say the restaurant industry, with its many small businesses, is consistently among the worst offenders for these violations. [GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Property Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Petter Hall of Pennsylvania Capital-Star reports that a federal judge in Philadelphia has dismissed a class action lawsuit against Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity that claimed the state's unclaimed property law violates the Constitution because it does not require the treasury to pay interest to owners who reclaim their property. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick granted Garrity's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed last year on behalf of Chester County resident Brian Dillow as the lead plaintiff. Surrick wrote that courts around the country have found Pennsylvania Disposition of Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Act and similar laws do not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Surrick cited a series of cases drawing on a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that held an owner's failure to make use of property does not constitute a "taking" by the government. In that case, the Supreme Court said the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay a landowner for the use of land taken by the government until it is returned or purchased. "However, where there is no owner to whom the government is able to grant compensation, as is the case with abandoned property, it does not make sense to require the government to be financially liable for this intervening period before an owner comes forward to claim his property," Surrick wrote. "The government need not ‘compensate the owner for the consequences of his own neglect.'" The Pennsylvania Treasury holds $4.5 billion in unclaimed property while actively searching for its owners, a Treasury spokesperson told the Capital-Star in February. "This decision is exactly right," Garrity said in a statement. "I'm pleased that the court correctly applied the law and dismissed this case. Pennsylvania has been returning unclaimed property to its rightful owners at a record pace, and I will continue to focus on getting this money back where it belongs." Each year hundreds of millions dollars are handed over to the Treasury by financial institutions, insurance companies and other entities required by law to give property to the state if they have no contact with the owner for a given amount of time. In 2022-23, the Treasury returned $274 million, the most ever in a single fiscal year. But some of that money cannot be claimed by anyone, spokesperson Erik Arneson said, and a portion of that remainder each year goes into Pennsylvania's general fund to pay for government programs. The suit was filed shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in another case in which Pennsylvania and Wisconsin separately sued Delaware, arguing it had improperly kept hundreds of millions of dollars paid to Delaware-based international payments provider MoneyGram. A court-appointed special master in 2021 found that Delaware improperly required MoneyGram to turn over unclaimed funds that should have been returned to the states where the unclaimed MoneyGram checks were purchased. Arneson said this week that the states and MoneyGram remain in negotiations with the special master to work out the intricacies of a settlement, including how much Delaware should pay, how much MoneyGram should pay and what portion of the money owed should be repaid with interest. Garrity estimated after the 2023 decision that Pennsylvania could receive nearly $19 million. Delaware's total liability could top $400 million. [GN] PILOT TRAVEL: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Alton Martin, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC d/b/a Pilot Travel Center #1047, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00449 (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2024), seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Pilot Travel Center employed Plaintiff Alton Martin as a maintenance and cleaning employee from May 01, 2023, to March 31, 2024, or 48 weeks. The Plaintiff was required by his manager to work a minimum of two off-the-clock hours daily. However, Plaintiff's manager clocked Plaintiff out and changed Plaintiff's number of hours worked. The Defendant improperly deducted 2.5 hours, corresponding to 30 minutes of lunchtime, from Plaintiff's wages even though Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunchtime hours. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover 12.5 unpaid overtime hours weekly for every week he worked for Defendant, liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable by law. Pilot Travel Center is a retail business operating as a common gas station and travel center. It provides travelers with amenities such as fresh food, clean restrooms, showers, convenience stores, several fast-food restaurants, ATMs, laundry facilities, etc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Keeton Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY KEETON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01174-DAD-CSK (E.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages arising from and relating to the conduct of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting Plaintiff and class members on their cellular telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, beginning in late 2023 or early 2024, the Defendant made about 100 calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice without her prior express consent. This barrage of calls occurred almost daily, and to make matters worse, occurred even after Plaintiff instructed Defendant to stop calling her, and after Defendant's attorneys acknowledged receipt of the request for the calls to stop. The conduct here is particularly reckless and glaring coming from a publicly traded company valued in the billions of dollars, says the suit. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software purveyor for K-12 schools in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary St., Ste 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Suit Over Energy Drinks' Caffeine Content ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Syf of Top Class Action reports that Prime Hydration class action alleges energy drinks contain higher-than-advertised amounts of caffeine. Prime Hydration class action overview: Who: Plaintiff Bryant Preudhomme filed a class action lawsuit against Prime Hydration LLC. Why: Preudhomme claims that Prime Energy Drinks have higher than advertised caffeine. Where: The Prime Hydration Energy Drinks lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York. A consumer filed a class action lawsuit claiming that Prime Hydration Energy Drinks have higher caffeine levels than advertised. Plaintiff Bryant Preudhomme's class action, filed in April in New York federal court, claims that Prime Hydration practices false and deceptive advertising. YouTube personalities Logan Paul and KSI created the Prime Hydration brand and began selling drinks in 2022 by pushing the drinks to their 140 million combined YouTube followers. The brand then began selling Prime Hydration Energy Drinks a year later while using their accounts to begin "driving demand for the products, particularly among school-age children and teenage boys," the Prime Hydration caffeine lawsuit says. Caffeine has no place in diets of children, adolescents, CDC says. Independent testing has shown that Prime Hydration Energy Drinks have "substantially more than 200mg of caffeine," the Prime Energy class action says. Monster and Red Bull contain between 86 and 111 mg of caffeine in each can. Some schools have even banned the energy drinks due to their elevated caffeine content, according to the lawsuit. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says there is "no established safe limit for caffeine in young children." "Side effects for kids consuming caffeine could include rapid or irregular heartbeats, headaches, seizures, shaking, stomach upset and adverse emotional effects on mental health" the Prime Hydration caffeine lawsuit says. According to the CDC, 1,499 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years went to the emergency room for an energy drink related emergency in 2011. The plaintiff is represented by Philip J. Furia and Jason P. Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC and Paul J. Doolittle of Poulin Willey Anastopoulo LLC. The Prime Hydration caffeine class action lawsuit is Preudhomme v. Prime Hydration LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03568, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris & Whitaker Sue Over Security Deposits ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859 (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2024), accuses the Defendant of unlawfully taking security deposits from its residential tenants and failing to provide tenants certain required documents to impose a claim on security deposits, in violation of Florida laws. The Defendant is allegedly engaged in illegal and improper debt collection activities, directly affecting Plaintiffs and other similarly situated tenants. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant utilizes a form lease that violates Florida law, prematurely takes tenant security deposits, and fails to provide tenants the statutorily required Notice of Intention to Impose a Claim on Security Deposit Letter, in violation of the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act (FRLTA). Additionally, Defendant allegedly unlawfully takes the security deposit funds before they are due and seeks a setoff for amounts due over and above the security deposit, in violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the security deposit amounts collected or withheld by Defendant, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief available under the FRLTA and the FCCPA. Based in Altamonte Springs, FL, Progress Residential Management Services, LLC is a provider of single-family rental homes in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com mjett@vandwlaw.com RCI DINING: Moffitt's Bid for Conditional Certification Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled URSULA MOFFITT and KRISTEN WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. RCI DINING SERVICES (HARVEY), INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01059-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and for Conditional Certification. Plaintiffs Moffitt and White, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, filed this lawsuit against Defendant RCI Dining Services (Harvey), Inc., d/b/a Scarlett's Cabaret St. Louis. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant employed them and other current and former exotic dancers to work at Scarlett's Cabaret St. Louis in Washington Park, Illinois, from April 2020–April 2023. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant misclassified them as non-employee contractors and, therefore, failed to compensate them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of the collective "to include all individuals that worked or performed as exotic dancers for, at, or in Defendant's Scarlett's Cabaret St. Louis during the period of April 2020 through the present." The Defendants object, citing a contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant that contained a collective action waiver. Judge Daly notes that the Plaintiffs' affidavits list multiple ways in which they contend the Defendant treated them and at least 100 other exotic dancers as employees (as opposed to independent contractors), and then failed to pay them direct wages for hours worked at or above the federal minimum wage rate. The Defendant does not dispute the truthfulness of the Plaintiffs' affidavits. Instead, the Defendant contends that a collective action cannot be maintained because Plaintiffs Moffit and White (and all others similarly situated) signed an "Entertainer License Agreement" ("ELA"), which contained arbitration provisions. The Defendant reasons that if the Court conditionally certifies the collective, and permits the Plaintiffs to send notice to the other similarly situated employees, the Court will be signaling approval of the merits and otherwise stirring up litigation for a (the Defendant contends) meritless claim that is barred for all potential members by the collective waiver in the ELA. The Defendant's reasoning emulates the observations and findings by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., 947 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (7th Cir. 2020), citing Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 171-174 (1989). The collective action waiver relied upon by the Defendant is found within a mutual arbitration agreement, Judge Daly says. The Defendant apparently has no interest in enforcing or complying with the arbitration provision, preferring that the individual Plaintiffs file individual claims in court against it. Regardless, because the Defendant contends that this Court should not authorize notice because of the collective waiver, and because the collective waiver is found within a mutual arbitration agreement, Judge Daly holds that it is appropriate for the Court to follow the procedure outlined by the Seventh Circuit in Bigger. Accordingly, Judge Daly rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice pending resolution of the collective action waiver issue. The parties will meet and confer, and submit a proposed scheduling order to RJDpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov regarding the deadlines for disclosure and discovery of the purported arbitration agreements containing the class action waiver. A template for the proposed scheduling order is attached to the Order. Judge Daly holds that all the discovery, disclosures, and related procedures must be completed by Oct. 1, 2024. The Court will hold a status conference on Oct. 8, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., to discuss the most efficient way for the parties to present their evidence regarding the mutual arbitration agreements and collective waivers to the Court. In their Reply to the Defendant's Response to the Motion for Conditional Certification, the Plaintiffs made legal arguments against the enforcement of the collective action waiver, considering that it is found within the arbitration agreement and the Defendant failed to comply with their arbitration agreements. The Defendant did not have the opportunity to address those arguments because this district prohibits the filing of sur-replies. At any time prior to Aug. 1, 2024, Judge Daly holds that the Plaintiffs may file a brief that contains their legal arguments regarding the enforceability of the collective action waivers. Within 30 days, the Defendant may file a response brief. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytjmenap from PacerMonitor.com. SALEM TOWNSHIP: Faces Liddle Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Melinda Liddle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salem Township Hospital, Case No. 3:24-cv-01246 (S.D. Ill., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all current or former hourly-paid nurse and technician employees of Defendant who are/were not paid time and one-half their respective rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 during each workweek. The Defendant is allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of automatically deducting meal breaks of approximately 30 minutes for each shift, even though nurses and technicians are routinely required to respond to work demands during their shift, including during supposed meal breaks. Such a practice resulted in Defendant's failure to properly pay overtime premiums to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks all damages available under the FLSA and relevant state law, including back wages, liquidated and punitive damages, legal fees and costs, and other remedies. Salem Township Hospital is a healthcare facility located in Salem, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com SALVATION ARMY: Settles FCRA Class Action Lawsuit for $1.87MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Action reports that The Salvation Army agreed to pay more than $1.87 million to resolve claims it failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when procuring job applicant background checks. The settlement benefits individuals who applied for employment with The Salvation Army and whom the organization conducted a background check on between Nov. 2, 2018, and May 17, 2021. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim The Salvation Army failed to follow federal regulations when procuring job applicant background checks and taking action based on these reports. The company allegedly procured these reports without providing proper disclosures FCRA requires. The Salvation Army is a Christian nonprofit that provides aid to people in need and operates thrift stores around the country. The Salvation Army agreed to pay more than $1.87 million to resolve the FCRA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, consumers can receive a $95 voucher or coupon for use at a Salvation Army store in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada or Arizona. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 15, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 6, 2024. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment as long as they verify their identity on the settlement website. Who's Eligible Individuals who applied for employment with The Salvation Army and whom the organization conducted a background check on between Nov. 2, 2018, and May 17, 2021 Potential Award -- $95 voucher or coupon Proof of Purchase -- N/A Exclusion Deadline -- 06/15/2024 Case Name Parker v. The Salvation Army, et al., Case No. 20-civ-04787, in the Superior Court of the State of California for San Mateo County Final Hearing -- 08/06/2024 Settlement Website -- www.ParkerFCRASettlement.com Claims Administrator Parker v TSA c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 23459 Jacksonville, FL 32241 (866) 294-8988 Class Counsel Shaun Setareh Jose Maria D Patino Jr SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd #430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (877) 777-3774 Defense Counsel Rod M Fliegel Angela J Rafoth Garrick Y Chan LITTLER MENDELSON PC 633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Direct: (213) 443-4300 Fax: (213) 443-4299 [GN] SCHMIDT BAKING: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Silva Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stays the lawsuit entitled NATHANIEL SILVA and PHIL ROTHKUGEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCHMIDT BAKING DISTRIBUTION, LLC and SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01695-MPS (D. Conn.). Plaintiffs Nathaniel Silva and Phil Rothkugel brought this putative class action against Defendants Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. ("SBC") and Schmidt Baking Distribution, LLC ("SBD") alleging that they were the Defendants' employees and that the Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors, made unlawful deductions from their wages, and failed to pay them for overtime work in violation of Connecticut wage laws. The Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that arbitration agreements contained within the relevant contracts govern the disputes at issue in this case. SBC develops, manufactures, and markets bread and bread-like products to retailers and foodservice outlets. To coordinate the distribution of SBC's products, SBD, a subsidiary of SBC, enters into Distribution Agreements with independent operators, which give those companies exclusive rights to distribute and sell various Schmidt products to outlets within their designated territories (SBD's sole member is SBC). Plaintiff Nathaniel Silva worked for SBC as a delivery driver from approximately February 2020 to June 2020. In June 2020, SBC informed Silva that to continue to work for SBC, he would need to form a corporate entity and sign a Distribution Agreement with SBD. Silva formed Silva's Baked Goods, Inc., and on June 24, 2020, Silva's Baked Goods entered into a Distribution Agreement with SBD for the right to distribute SBC bread products to a certain sales area in Connecticut. On Oct. 28, 2020, Silva's Baked Goods entered into a second Distribution Agreement with SBD for the right to distribute to another area within Connecticut. Silva signed each of these agreements in his role as President of Silva's Baked Goods. He also signed as controlling shareholder of Silva's Baked Goods, agreeing to guarantee the full and complete performance by Silva's Baked Goods of its obligations under the Distribution Agreements. Plaintiff Phil Rothkugel worked for SBC as a delivery driver from approximately October 2020 to December 2020. In December 2020, SBC informed Rothkugel that to continue to work for SBC, he would need to form a corporate entity and sign a Distribution Agreement with SBD. Rothkugel formed Trout Slayers Baked Breads, Inc., and on Dec. 16, 2020, Trout Slayers entered into a Distribution Agreement with SBD for the right to distribute Schmidt brand bread products to a sales area in Connecticut. Rothkugel signed this agreement in his role as President of Trout Slayers. He also signed as controlling shareholder of Trout Slayers, agreeing to guarantee the full and complete performance by Trout Slayers of its obligations under the Distribution Agreements. Judge Shea finds that the relevant provisions of the three Distribution Agreements at issue here are indistinguishable. The agreements provide Silva's Baked Goods and Trout Slayers with the sole right to sell and distribute SBC Products to Outlets in the Sales Area by Direct Store Delivery. Article 11 of the Distribution Agreements sets forth the dispute resolution procedures to be followed in the event of any dispute arising out of the relationships created by the Agreements. Section 11.2 of the agreements provides that, in the event of any dispute, either party may initiate a mediation procedure. Section 11.3 sets forth the arbitration provision of the Distribution Agreements. The Plaintiffs served their class action complaint, which was filed in Connecticut superior court, on the Defendants on Nov. 30, 2023. On Dec. 5, the Defendants' counsel contacted the Plaintiffs' counsel to determine whether the Plaintiffs were interested in mediating their disputes. The Plaintiffs declined to participate in mediation. Then, the Defendants' counsel contacted the Plaintiffs' counsel to determine whether the Plaintiffs would voluntarily dismiss the complaint and resolve their claims in individual JAMS arbitrations. On Dec. 11, the Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that the Plaintiffs intended to pursue their claims through litigation, that they believed their disputes were not covered by an arbitration agreement, and that the arbitration provisions in their Distribution Agreements were unenforceable. On Dec. 15, the Defendants filed with JAMS demands for individual arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendants removed the Plaintiffs' case from the Connecticut superior court to this Court on Dec. 29. On Jan. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed the pending motion to compel arbitration. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs, through corporate entities they created and owned, entered into the Distribution Agreements, and that the arbitration provisions of the Distribution Agreements are binding on the Plaintiffs. The Defendants further argue that the Distribution Agreements delegate to arbitrators all disputes concerning the scope of the agreements' arbitration provisions, including disputes over arbitrability. Judge Shea finds that the Distribution Agreements contain none of the characteristic elements of employment contracts, such as terms regarding salaries or benefits. Instead, they read like what they are--agreements between businesses. They provide that Silva's Baked Goods and Trout Slayers will buy baked goods from SBD, with title passing at the time of delivery; will have the right to operate the business as they choose; will bear all risks and costs of operating their businesses; and will be responsible for hiring and firing their own employees. In addition, Judge Shea finds, the Distribution Agreements leave Silva's Baked Goods and Trout Slayers free both to distribute merchandise for other firms, unless those firms compete with SBD or joint carriage of the products would contaminate the SBD baked products, and to sell their distribution rights, provided SBD approves (which approval may not be unreasonably withheld). These are not terms typically seen in contracts between a business and its workers; they are, instead, terms that suggest a supplier-distributor relationship between two companies, Judge Shea opines. Further, corporations and limited liability companies ("LLCs") are not "workers" under the statute. Because the Distribution Agreements here are between two business entities, they are not contracts of employment and the Section 1 exception does not apply. For these reasons, Judge Shea concludes that the Plaintiffs are not exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Judge Shea also finds that the language of the Distribution Agreements evinces an intent to bind both the Plaintiffs and SBC to arbitrate their disputes. Section 11.7 of the Distribution Agreements, entitled "Individual Action," provides, in pertinent part, that the parties agree that only SBD (and its affiliates and their respective owners, officers, directors, agents and employees, as applicable) and DISTRIBUTOR (and its affiliates and their respective owners, officers, and directors, as applicable) may be the parties to any proceeding described in this Section. Judge Shea does not agree with the Plaintiffs' suggestion that the language in Section 11.7 is ambiguous. By their plain language, the Distribution Agreements permit the Plaintiffs' companies' affiliates and their respective owners, officers, and directors to be made parties to a legal proceeding, including arbitration. Because Judge Shea has concluded that the Distribution Agreements require the Plaintiffs to arbitrate, the Court must grant the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration unless it finds that the arbitration provisions of the Distribution Agreements are unenforceable. But Judge Shea may not decide the issue of enforceability if the Distribution Agreements validly delegate that issue to the arbitrator. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that arbitration costs would be prohibitive. The Plaintiffs assert that if they challenge the cost-shifting issue in front of an arbitrator and lose, they must pay thousands of dollars to have obtained a decision on the issue. They do not, however, explain how they reached this estimate; rather, they simply point to arbitration costs incurred in other cases, Judge Shea notes. But the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing that they likely will incur prohibitive arbitrator fees simply by showing the fees that some arbitrators are charging somewhere, Judge Shea opines. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not provided evidence or argument about the value of their claims, which is a critical factor in a "prohibitive costs" analysis. The Plaintiffs, therefore, have not carried their burden of demonstrating that they would likely face prohibitive costs if they were required to arbitrate their disputes. In any event, Judge Shea notes, the Plaintiffs' concerns regarding the cost- and fee-shifting provisions seem to be moot given a notice sent to the parties from JAMS indicating that its Policy on Employment Arbitration Minimum Standards will apply "notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the parties' pre-dispute arbitration agreement." For these reasons, Judge Shea holds that the arbitration agreements' cost- and fee-shifting provisions are not substantively unconscionable and will not bar application of the delegation clause, and that the delegation clauses are neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. In sum, Judge Shea holds that the Plaintiffs are not exempt under Section 1 of the FAA; the arbitration agreements are binding on them as owners and officers of their respective businesses; and the arbitration agreements validly delegate their unconscionability challenges to the arbitrator. Thus, all of the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments are to be decided by an arbitrator. For the reasons explained in this Ruling, the Court grants the Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the action is stayed. The Clerk is instructed to administratively close this case. Either party may move to reopen this case following the decision by the arbitration panel. Any such motion must be filed within 30 days of the rendering of the decision and a copy of the decision must be filed with the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling dated May 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ha5epdby from PacerMonitor.com. SECRIST MARKETING: Goudelias to Seek Settlement Approval by May 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gives the Plaintiff until May 29, 2024, to file a motion for preliminary settlement approval in the lawsuit captioned Elena Goudelias, Plaintiff v. Secrist Marketing Strategies, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08928-RFT (S.D.N.Y.). In light of the parties' notice that they have reached an agreement in principle, all discovery deadlines are stayed. The Plaintiff has until May 29, 2024, to file a motion for preliminary approval of the parties' class-action settlement agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/48azcea3 from PacerMonitor.com. SHOPIFY INC: Appeals Court Revisits Consumer Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that as federal appellate courts continue to grapple with questions about where online businesses can be sued, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed on Tuesday, May 14, to revisit the dismissal of a California consumer class action against nationwide online payment platform Shopify. The court's en banc review will undoubtedly address an issue with potentially huge implications for online businesses: Does it make sense for courts weighing jurisdiction for suits against internet defendants to draw a distinction between cases involving physical goods and those focused on online services? The three-judge 9th Circuit panel that first decided the Shopify case highlighted that distinction in its ruling, opens new tab last November. The panel affirmed the dismissal of claims by lead plaintiff Brandon Briskin that Canada-based Shopify (SHOP.TO), opens new tab and two U.S. subsidiaries secretly collected confidential data from him and other California consumers, then resold that information to merchants and other Shopify business partners. California courts, the panel said, did not have jurisdiction over Briskin's case because he failed to show that Shopify -- which provides payment services to merchants and consumers all over the country -- aimed any conduct specifically at California. The panel contrasted its decision with the holding in another 2023 9th Circuit opinion addressing jurisdiction in suits against online businesses. In that case, Herbal Brands v. Photoplaza, a three-judge appellate panel concluded, opens new tab that under the U.S. Supreme Court's pre-internet decision in Keeton v. Hustler Magazine -- which held, opens new tab that the delivery of physical products is sufficient to establish jurisdiction -- Arizona had jurisdiction over Herbal Brands' trademark infringement suit against several Amazon resellers because the resellers had delivered physical products to Arizona purchasers. The Shopify panel, as I told you in November, said the Herbal Brands ruling did not determine the outcome in Briskin's case because Briskin's claims did not involve physical products. A minor detour: Appellate courts have been struggling in the internet era to define the limits of the Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in the Hustler case, as the Amazon resellers from the Herbal Brands case told the justices when they petitioned for Supreme Court review last fall. Some federal circuits have said the delivery of a single product gives rise to jurisdiction. Other appellate courts have been skeptical of that hair trigger. Most recently, the 6th Circuit ruled, opens new tab last week in a trademark case by AMB Media that Tennessee had jurisdiction to hear the suit based on the defendants' delivery of about 20 allegedly infringing products to Tennessee purchasers. The 6th Circuit noted -- but declined to engage with -- the debate over "fringe cases" involving the delivery of a single product. The Supreme Court also appears to be reluctant to wade into this particular fray right now, denying the Amazon resellers' petition in January in the Herbal Brands case. In their en banc petition, opens new tab in the Shopify case, Briskin's counsel at Public Citizen argued that it's misguided to distinguish between the delivery of physical products and the provision of online services in determining jurisdiction. Under the logic of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hustler case and the 9th Circuit's ruling in Herbal Brands, Public Citizen argued, Shopify exposed itself to the jurisdiction of California courts by wooing California merchants to use the platform for online sales and by processing payments from California consumers. It simply doesn't make sense, the petition argued, that California courts would have jurisdiction if a lawsuit accused a national retail chain of setting up physical surveillance devices at cash registers in California stores -- but, under the panel ruling in the Shopify case, California cannot hear a case accusing a national internet platform of online harvesting of the same data. Shopify lawyers from Hueston Hennigan did not respond to my email query. The company has denied that its "routine processing" of credit card payments from Briskin and other consumers amounts to illegal surveillance. In Shopify's brief opposing en banc review, opens new tab, Hueston Hennigan argued that the panel decision is consistent with decades of precedent, from both the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court, requiring plaintiffs to allege that defendants did something more than simply earning profits in a particular forum in order to establish that forum's jurisdiction. The "something more" might be delivering physical products, the Shopify brief said, but it could also be advertising or marketing in a particular venue, or running the business in a way that targets consumers in a particular state. The Shopify panel, Hueston Hennigan said, left the door open for plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction over online platforms. It simply held that Briskin and his lawyers failed to show that Shopify aimed conduct at California. Briskin counsel Nicolas Sansone of Public Citizen said in an interview that even though we don't know how the en banc 9th Circuit will ultimately rule, it's a good sign that the appeals court took the case and vacated the panel opinion. He's hoping, of course, that the court ends up ditching the "antiquated" dichotomy between the sale and delivery of physical products and the provision of online services. "Whether a company profits by selling goods or extracting data," Sansone said, "we don't see any reason why the jurisdictional analysis should be different." Shopify warned in its brief opposing en banc review that Briskin's theory would subject nationwide online platforms to jurisdiction wherever they operate, at the whim of plaintiffs. That regime, Shopify said, "would destroy the clear limits set by the Constitution and Supreme Court." The original Shopify panel said its decision was a "novel" matter of first impression. With the en banc court now poised to confront the same tough issues, the case is more consequential than ever. [GN] SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sprout Social, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPT) securities between November 2, 2023 and May 2, 2024. Sprout Social is a software company that develops and operates a web-based social media management platform. 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 Allegations that Sprout Social, Inc. (SPT) Failed to Disclose that Due to Challenges the Company Would Revive its Fiscal Year 2024 Revenue Guidance According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's sales and revenue growth were not indicative of the Company's growth as it transitioned to an enterprise sales cycle; (2) that the Company faced integration challenges with its acquisition of Tagger; (3) as a result, the Company was "self inducing sales headwinds;" and (4) as a result, the Company would revise fiscal year 2024 revenue guidance. On May 2, 2024, Sprout Social announced the Company's operating results for the first fiscal quarter of 2024, disclosing that the Company had missed its revenue guidance for the quarter, and revising its full year 2024 revenue guidance downward $20 million. The Company's Chief Financial Officer Joe Del Preto stated the Company had "underestimated the magnitude of enterprise seasonality" and that the Company had also been "self-inducing sales execution headwinds." On this news, Sprout Social's stock price fell $19.33, or 40.1%, to close at $28.82 per share on May 3, 2024, What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Sprout Social, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by July 12, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Sprout Social, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Munch Class Suit Over 40.1% Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD MUNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPROUT SOCIAL, INC., JUSTYN HOWARD, RYAN BARRETTO, and JOE DEL PRETO, Case No. 1:24-cv-03867 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sprout Social securities between Nov. 2, 2023 and May 2, 2024, inclusive, against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Company announced it had acquired Tagger Media, Inc., a leading influencer marketing and social intelligence platform used by enterprise brands and agencies. On Sept. 27, 2023, the Company announced during its Investor Day that it would be "accelerating our outbound marketing & sales motion in enterprise" and focusing on mid-market and enterprise leadership. On May 2, 2024, after the markets closed, Sprout Social announced the Company's operating results for the first fiscal quarter of 2024, disclosing that the Company had missed its revenue guidance for the quarter. On this news, Sprout Social's stock price fell $19.33, or 40.1%, to close at $28.82 per share on May 3, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's sales and revenue growth were not indicative of the Company's growth as it transitioned to an enterprise sales cycle; (2) that the Company faced integration challenges with its acquisition of Tagger; and (3) as a result, the Company was "self inducing sales headwinds," the suit asserts. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Plaintiff Munch purchased Sprout Social securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Sprout Social is a software company which develops and operates a web-based social media management platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 53 w. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1320 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 E-mail: mmiller@millerlaw.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 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com T-MOBILE US: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Sprint Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports that T-Mobile US must face a proposed consumer class-action lawsuit challenging its $26 billion purchase of rival Sprint in 2020. On May 16, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the telecom giant's bid to appeal a key ruling that allowed the case to proceed. In a brief order, the appellate court rejected T-Mobile's request to appeal a decision that granted the plaintiffs legal "standing" to pursue claims that the merger has driven up prices for wireless services, according to a report by Reuters. T-Mobile had sought to appeal this ruling immediately rather than waiting for the case to unfold in the lower court. While a trial judge approved this request in March, the 7th Circuit decided not to hear the appeal at this stage. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Verizon and AT&T customers who argue that the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint has negatively impacted them by increasing service prices. They are seeking billions of dollars in damages and aim to have the merger undone through the court system. Related: Judge Orders T-Mobile to Face Suit Alleging Anti-Competitive Practices T-Mobile contends that these plaintiffs, being customers of its competitors, should not have the standing to sue over its merger with Sprint. Despite this contention, the lawsuit will proceed in the lower court. Brendan Glackin, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed approval of the appeals court's decision. "We look forward to developing the record and trying the case to a jury in Chicago," Glackin stated. Under U.S. antitrust law, consumers and other parties have the authority to bring lawsuits concerning mergers and acquisitions. T-Mobile's acquisition of Sprint had previously undergone significant regulatory scrutiny and some government litigation but was ultimately approved and completed. [GN] T-MOBILE US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sprint Merger Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Lipscombe, writing for Data Centre Dynamics, reports that T-Mobile has lost its bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit attempting to undo its $26 billion merger with Sprint. As reported by Reuters, the carrier will now have to face the court case after its appeal against it was rejected. The class action suit on behalf of millions of consumers claims that AT&T and Verizon subscribers have had to pay billions of dollars extra for wireless service after the merger reduced competition by cutting the number of US mobile from four to three. The proposed suit was filed last year and seeks a range of penalties, the most severe of which is the undoing of the merger. In a court order, the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals denied T-Mobile's request to appeal a decision that argues plaintiffs have a legal "standing" to prove their claims the merger has increased prices for wireless services. Illinois District Judge Thomas Durkin said in November that the plaintiffs "plausibly" argued that higher prices stemmed directly from the deal. However, in March he ruled that T-Mobile could appeal his order, noting that the plaintiffs' had not sufficiently alleged antitrust standing. T-Mobile was unsuccessful. "We look forward to developing the record and trying the case to a jury in Chicago," said Brendan Glackin, an attorney for the plaintiffs. T-Mobile hasn't commented as of yet, but has previously called the claims "speculative." The merger with Sprint was first announced in 2018, and subsequently completed in 2020. The deal faced scrutiny from regulators but was eventually cleared. [GN] TARKENTON SENIOR: Pinn Sues Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------ KELLY PINN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARKENTON SENIOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01962-AT (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2024) arises out of Defendant, Tarkenton Senior Solutions, LLC's relentless marketing practices targeting senior citizens that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Pinn received numerous telemarketing calls to her residential telephone number, which was registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Despite Plaintiff's repeated request to stop the calls and to add her phone number to the Defendant's internal do-not-call list, the Defendant continues to violate the TCPA and ignore Plaintiff's privacy rights by making more unsolicited calls. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Tarkenton Senior Solutions, LLC offers final expense and life insurance products to senior citizens. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 Facsimile: (404) 301-2300 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com TEACHERS FEDERAL: Sennhenn Sues Over Unlawful Time Rounding Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATHLEEN SENNHENN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TEACHERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03336 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's policy and practice of improper time punch rounding, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Sennhenn worked for Defendant as an hourly, nonexempt employee from February 2019 to April 2023. Allegedly, Defendant rounded Plaintiff's time punches to the nearest quarter-hour. As a result, Plaintiff was not being paid for all hours worked in accordance with federal and New York state law, says the suit. Based in Hauppauge, NY, Teachers Federal Credit Union operates 30 bank branches across Long Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Sirotkin, Esq. MORELLI LAW FIRM, PLLC 777 Third Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 751-9800 Facsimile: (212) 751-0046 E-mail: dsirotkin@morellilaw.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertised Autopilot --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Carrier Management reports that a U.S. judge on May 15, rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss a lawsuit accusing Elon Musk's electric car company of misleading owners into believing that their vehicles could soon have self-driving capabilities. The proposed nationwide class action accused Tesla and Musk of having since 2016 falsely advertised Autopilot and other self-driving technology as functional or "just around the corner," inducing drivers to pay more for their vehicles. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco said owners could pursue negligence and fraud-based claims, to the extent they relied on Tesla's representations regarding vehicles' hardware and ability to drive coast-to-coast across the U.S. Without ruling on the merits, Lin said that "if Tesla meant to convey that its hardware was sufficient to reach high or full automation, the Read full story plainly alleges sufficient falsity." The judge dismissed some other claims. Tesla and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for Tesla vehicle owners did not immediately respond to similar requests. The case was led by Thomas LoSavio, a retired California lawyer who said he paid an $8,000 premium in 2017 for Full Self-Driving capabilities on a Tesla Model S, believing it would make driving safer if his reflexes deteriorated as he aged. LoSavio said he was still waiting for the technology six years later, with Tesla remaining unable "even remotely" to produce a fully self-driving car. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for people who since 2016 bought or leased Tesla vehicles with Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. Tesla has for many years faced federal probes into whether its self-driving technology might have contributed to fatal crashes. Federal prosecutors are separately examining whether Tesla committed securities fraud or wire fraud by misleading investors about its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, according to three people familiar with the matter. Tesla has said Autopilot lets vehicles steer, accelerate and brake in their lanes, and Full Self-Driving lets vehicles obey traffic signals and change lanes. But it had acknowledged that neither technology makes vehicles autonomous, or excuses drivers from paying attention to the roads. The case is In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-05240. [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Bassen Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thompson M. Dietz of the United States Court of Federal Claims grants in part and denies in part the Government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned NICHOLAS BASSEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00211-TMD (Fed. Cl.). The Plaintiffs in this class action, current and former members of the United States military, sue the United States for backpay and other relief, alleging that they suffered adverse personnel action by the military due to their COVID-19 vaccination status. Before the Court is the Government's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") and for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6). On Aug. 24, 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III issued a COVID-19 vaccine mandate ("the Mandate"). Therein, Secretary Austin directed the Secretaries of the Military Departments to immediately begin full vaccination of all members of the Armed Forces under Department of Defense ("DoD") authority on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard, who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19. He explained that the mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance. Following the Secretary's issuance of the Mandate, each branch of the Armed Forces issued its own mandate. On Dec. 27, 2021, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA") for Fiscal Year 2022 ("2022 NDAA"). Section 736 of the 2022 NDAA provided that any covered member of the Armed Forces, who failed to comply with the Mandate, could receive only "an honorable discharge" or "a general discharge under honorable conditions." On Dec. 23, 2022, Congress enacted the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2023 ("2023 NDAA"). Section 525 of the 2023 NDAA directed the Secretary of Defense to rescind the Mandate. Shortly thereafter, on Jan. 10, 2023, Secretary Austin rescinded the Mandate. He stated: "No individuals currently serving in the Armed Forces shall be separated solely on the basis of their refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccination if they sought an accommodation on religious, administrative, or medical grounds. The Military Departments will update the records of such individuals to remove any adverse actions solely associated with denials of such requests, including letters of reprimand...." Following Secretary Austin's recission of the Mandate, the DoD issued guidelines for implementing the policy change. For example, on Feb. 24, 2023, the Deputy Secretary of Defense explained that the Secretary's recission of the Mandate also rendered all DoD Component policies, directives, and guidance implementing those vaccination mandates as no longer in effect as of Jan. 10, 2023. The Deputy Secretary clarified that, except if required for foreign travel or if required under a new immunization mandate, DoD Component heads and commanders will not require a Service member to be vaccinated against COVID-19, nor consider a Service member's COVID-19 immunization status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions. In addition, each branch of the Armed Forces issued its own directive for implementing the rescission. On Feb. 13, 2023, six named Plaintiffs filed the instant class action. On June 13, 2023, the Government moved to dismiss the complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, adding four additional Plaintiffs. The ten named Plaintiffs are Nick Bassen, Brent Chisholm, Isaac Dailey, Kyle Davis, Billie Endress, Allen Hall, Andrew Merjil, Paul Rodriguez, Hunger Springer, and Derrick Wynne. These individuals are both active-duty service members and reservists in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The Plaintiffs assert five counts in their first amended complaint: (1) Violation of the 2023 NDAA; (2) Violation of 10 U.S.C. Section 1107a; (3) Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"); (4) Illegal Exaction; and (5) Correction of Military Records. In addition to class certification, they seek a minimum of $2.2 million in damages, as well as reinstatement, correction of military records, and other appropriate relief. On Aug. 25, 2023, the Government filed the instant motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their claims and that they fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Judge Dietz notes that when the Government moves to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, citing Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States, 20 F.4th 771, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Government moves to dismiss each of the Plaintiffs' five counts under either RCFC 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). For the reasons explained in this Opinion and Order, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count I (Violation of the 2023 NDAA); that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a Military Pay Act ("MPA") claim under Count II (Violation of 10 U.S.C. Section 1107a); that Messrs. Chisholm, Hall, and Rodriguez have sufficiently stated an MPA claim and Messrs. Springer, Dailey, Endress, Merjil, Bassen, Davis, and Wynne have failed to state a claim under Count III (Violation of the RFRA); and that all Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Counts IV (Illegal Exaction) and V (Correction of Military Records). The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Count I because Section 525 is not money-mandating. The Court also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have standing to assert a claim under the MPA for violation of 10 U.S.C. Section 1107a and that they have adequately stated a claim for relief in Count II. For these reasons, the Court rules that the Government's motion to dismiss is granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The motion is granted with respect to Counts I, III (with respect to Messrs. Springer, Dailey, Endress, Merjil, Bassen, Davis, and Wynne), IV, and V. These claims will be dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied with respect to Counts II and III (with respect to Messrs. Chisholm, Hall, and Rodriguez). A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pmtnvwp from PacerMonitor.com. Dale F. Saran -- dalesaran@gmail.com -- Finn Law Group, P.A., in Olathe, Kansas, counsel for the Plaintiff. With whom were Brandon Johnson and J. Andrew Meyer. Kyle S. Beckrich -- kyle.beckrich@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, in Washington, D.C., counsel for the Defendant. With whom was Holly K. Bryant, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, of counsel. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Merger With Change Healthcare ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH) common stock between March 14, 2022 and February 27, 2024. UnitedHealth is a health care and well-being company comprised of two distinct and complementary businesses: Optum and UnitedHealthcare. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH) Failed to Disclose DOJ Investigation According to the complaint, on January 6, 2021, UnitedHealth announced an agreement to acquire Change Healthcare ("Change") and integrate it into its existing Optum business. In response, on February 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a lawsuit challenging UnitedHealth's acquisition of Change. The DOJ alleged that the proposed acquisition would violate antitrust laws because the integration of Change and Optum would give UnitedHealth unparalleled access to information regarding nearly every health insurer, as well as health data on every single American. UnitedHealth assured the DOJ, investors, and customers that Optum would "maintain robust firewall processes" to prevent CSI from being shared between Optum and UnitedHealthcare. The court in the antitrust action ultimately permitted the acquisition, repeatedly crediting UnitedHealth's firewall policy and commitment to preventing the sharing of data between UnitedHealthcare and Optum as the rationale for allowing the deal to proceed. Plaintiff alleges that on February 27, 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ had re-opened its antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth. In that article, the public learned for the first time that the DOJ was investigating the relationships between the Company's various segments, including Optum. As a result of these disclosures, the price of UnitedHealth stock declined by $27 per share, wiping out nearly $25 billion in shareholder value. The complaint alleges that UnitedHealth was aware of the DOJ investigation since at least October 2023. Instead of disclosing this material investigation to investors or the public, UnitedHealth insiders sold more than $120 million of their personally held UnitedHealth shares. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by July 15, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against UnitedHealth Group Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] UPHOLD HQ: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing ------------------------------------------------------- David Pimentel at BlockTribune reports that on Thursday, April 25, 2024, a second amended class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against digital money platform Uphold HQ Inc. The lawsuit alleges consumer fraud and seeks damages for thousands of customers who invested in Uphold's interest-earning product called CredEarn, or Earn, which promised returns on deposits of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. The suit claims that Uphold knew Earn carried significant risks but actively marketed it as a safe, traditional interest-earning product similar to a savings account without properly disclosing the underlying risks to consumers. In reality, the funds deposited in Earn were invested in Cred, Inc., a cryptocurrency lending firm that was grossly mismanaged and filed for bankruptcy in November 2020, causing customers to lose all their investments. According to court documents, Uphold was aware of Cred's troubled financial history, lack of proper accounting controls, and risky ties to a Chinese micro-lending firm through meetings and its representation on Cred's board. One Uphold board member even warned in May 2020 that continuing to do business with Cred without more oversight could result in losses for customers and lawsuits against Uphold. However, Uphold allegedly failed to conduct a formal audit of Cred or make Cred's risks clear to consumers. The lawsuit maintains Uphold had a duty to disclose this material information, but continued marketing Earn using uniform materials without mention of Cred until just before its bankruptcy. Plaintiffs claim Uphold knew Earn was essentially an unsecured loan to Chinese gamers, not a secured, traditional banking product as promoted, and that Uphold's actions constitute consumer fraud under New York law where many disputes are governed. The suit seeks restitution of lost funds and penalties. [GN] VARSITY SPIRIT: Settles Greenwashing Class Action Law for $82.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports that in a significant development for the cheerleading events industry, Varsity Spirit, along with its current and former private equity owners, has reached a settlement agreement of $82.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed more than three years ago in Memphis federal court, accused the cheerleading events promoter of overcharging athletes, reported Reuters. According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, the proposed accord aims to address allegations that Varsity and affiliated entities engaged in practices that purportedly excluded competitors from the cheer industry, resulting in inflated prices that violated U.S. antitrust law. Both current owner Bain Capital and former owner Charlesbank Capital, among others, were defendants in the lawsuit and have agreed to participate in the settlement. Despite the settlement, all defendants have maintained their denial of any wrongdoing. The terms of the settlement, subject to court approval, have not specified the individual contributions from each defendant towards the $82.5 million total, as reported by Reuters. In response to the settlement, Varsity, headquartered in Memphis, issued a statement expressing its satisfaction with the resolution. The company affirmed its confidence in having acted appropriately and in the best interest of the sport. Bain Capital and the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit declined to comment, while Charlesbank Capital did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This settlement follows a prior resolution reached by Varsity last year, in which it settled a related case with gyms, spectators and other direct purchasers for $43 million, also reported by Reuters. [GN] VENUS CONCEPT: Underpays Field Service Engineers, Keller Says ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL KELLER and LORENZO HERRING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VENUS CONCEPT USA INC, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60657 (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. This action seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and all allowable damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs under the FLSA and state laws for Plaintiffs individually, and as a collective action for Plaintiffs and all current or former salary-paid field service engineers company-wide who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek performing FSE services for Defendant, for which they were internally classified and paid by any Defendant as "exempt" from the overtime laws within the period beginning three years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and ending on the date of judgment in this matter. Plaintiffs Keller and Herring worked as FSEs for Defendant from June 2021 until April 2023 and from April 2021 until December 2022, respectively. Venus Concept USA Inc. provides global medical aesthetic technology services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 8151 Peters Rd, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Telephone: (404) 924-4151 Facsimile: (404) 796-7338 E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com bhilbert@headlawfirm.com VESTIS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud ----------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Vestis Corporation ("Vestis" or the "Company") (NYSE: VSTS) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Vestis common stock between October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby. The Class Action filed by Saxena White P.A. is captioned: Plumbers, Pipefitters and Apprentices Local No. 112 Pension Fund v. Vestis Corporation et al., No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga.). Based in Roswell, Georgia, Vestis is a provider of uniforms and workplace supplies in the United States and Canada. The Company was created as the result of its September 30, 2023 spinoff from food services and facilities management provider Aramark. Vestis began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on October 2, 2023, the first day of the Class Period, under the ticker symbol "VSTS." Leading up to Class Period before the spinoff, soon-to-be executives of Vestis claimed that "investments are in place" to deliver "5% to 7% topline growth" on compound annual growth rate (CAGR). They also assured investors that the Company's sales force had "reached their stride" and were "now hitting productivity levels that we desire from them." As the Class Period progressed, Defendants highlighted the "really, really great feedback" that Vestis had received from its customer service initiatives and maintained that the Company's growth would continue to accelerate based on, among other things, Vestis "providing service excellence to our customers." The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Aramark had historically underinvested in the business that became Vestis; (2) Vestis operated with outdated facilities and an underperforming sales force; (3) Vestis's outdated facilities and underperforming sales force led to "service gaps" that had impeded the Company's levers of growth and had resulted in customer attrition; and (4) as a result of the above, Defendants' statements about Vestis's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The truth was revealed before markets opened on May 2, 2024, when Vestis issued a press release announcing financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2024, ended March 29, 2024. Specifically, the Company disclosed that it had generated revenue of $705 million, a 0.9% increase over the same quarter in the prior year, and also had downwardly revised its revenue outlook for fiscal year 2024 to a range of negative 1% to 0%. During the corresponding earnings call with analysts that day, Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Kimberly Scott revealed the "challenges" facing the Company related "to sales productivity and deliberate moderated pricing actions," the latter of which CEO Scott explained were necessary to "improve[] retention" and because "service gaps" had "driven price sensitivity." During the same call, analysts pointed out that Vestis had pivoted from a recent announcement of a price increase to a price decrease and questioned Defendants about the reversal in pricing capabilities. On this news, the price of Vestis stock plummeted 45%, from a closing price of $18.47 per share on May 1, 2024, to a closing price of $10.16 per share on May 2, 2024. If you purchased Vestis common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia no later than July 16, 2024. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), an attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION Marco A. Dueñas, Esq. mduenas@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, New York 10606 Tel.: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] VISA INC: Settles Anti-Trust Class Suit Over Interchange Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Rockman-Smith of brsw-cpa.com reports that Visa and Mastercard has settled a $5.5 billion class action lawsuit that claimed they violated anti-trust laws overcharging merchants with interchange fees from January 1, 2004 through January 24, 2019. All persons, businesses, and other entities that accepted Visa or Mastercard branded debit or credit cards during that time period are eligible to submit a claim to receive a portion of the settlement fund. Payment amount is determined on a pro rata basis meaning the payout will be a percentage of the settlement fund proportionate to the business’s claim out of all claims filed before the deadline of August 30, 2024. An online portal has been established at paymentcardsettlement.com to submit and view the status of claims. Claims can be submitted with or without receiving a claim ID in the mail. If a business doesn’t have a claim ID and control number, a claim can still be submitted by providing the business name, tax ID number, and a document showing proof of authorization such as a W-9 or merchant statements that show both the tax ID and name. A human administrator will need to review the authorization document and accept it before a claim can be submitted, so that process will require a follow up after initial documentation is submitted. Transaction data from Visa and Mastercard has already been collected, so there isn’t any need to dig through old records in order to submit a claim. Because of this, the process of submitting a claim is fairly simple and the use of third parties to file the claim on your behalf is not encouraged. Businesses that have gone out of business or filed bankruptcy during this time may still file claims. [GN] VW GROUP: Settles Emissions Fraud Scandal Suit for EUR50MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Harry Moran of Litigation Finance Journal reports that Altroconsumo and VW Group have reached a ground-breaking agreement, providing over 50 million euro relief to over 60,000 Italian consumers affected by the emissions fraud scandal. Celebrating this major win for Italian consumers, Euroconsumers calls on Volkswagen to now also compensate Dieselgate victims in the other Euroconsumers countries. The settlement reached by Altroconsumo, arising from a Euroconsumers coordinated class action which commenced in 2015 ensures that Volkswagen will allocate over 50 million euros in compensation. Eligible participants stand to receive payments of up to 1100 euros per individual owner. This brings an end to an eight year long legal battle that Altroconsumo together with Euroconsumers has been fiercefully fighting for Italian consumers and marks a significant milestone in seeking justice for those impacted by the 'Dieselgate' scandal. "We extend our massive congratulations to Altroconsumo for reaching this major settlement in favor of the Italian Dieselgate victims. Finally, they will receive the justice and compensation they deserve. This milestone underscores the importance of upholding consumer rights and the accountability of big market players when these rights are ignored, something Euroconsumers and all its national organisations will continue to do together with even more intensity under the new Representative Actions Directive" -- Marco Scialdone, Head Litigation and Academic Outreach Euroconsumers Together with Altroconsumo in Italy, Euroconsumers also initiated Dieselgate class actions against the Volkswagen-group in Belgium, Spain and Portugal. While the circumstances are shared, the outcomes have been far from consistent. "Euroconsumers was the first European consumer cluster to launch collective actions against Volkswagen to secure redress and compensation for all affected by the emissions scandal in its member countries. After 8 years of relentless pursuit, we urge the VW group to finally come through for all of them and give all of them the compensation they rightfully deserve. All Dieselgate victims are equal and should be treated with equal respect." – Els Bruggeman, Head Policy and Enforcement Euroconsumers Consumer protection is nothing without enforcement and so Euroconsumers and its organisations will continue to lead important class actions which benefit consumers all across the single market. About Euroconsumers Gathering five national consumer organisations and giving voice to a total of more than 1,5 million people in Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Brazil, Euroconsumers is the world's leading consumer cluster in innovative information, personalised services and the defence of consumer rights. Our European member organisations are part of the umbrella network of BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation. Together we advocate for EU policies that benefit consumers in their daily lives. [GN] WALMART INC: Court Rejects Raw Honey Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newline, to hire a class action lawyer's second chance at suing Walmart over whether it can label its honey as raw has failed. Chicago federal judge Lindsay Jenkins on May 9 rejected the first amended complaint of lawyer Spencer Sheehan, after dismissing the original complaint Feb. 22. Plaintiff John Wertymer and Sheehan allege Walmart adds foreign sugars during processing and excessively heats it. The heat causes the enzymes in raw honey to be destroyed, the suit says, despite Walmart marketing its Great Value-brand honey as organic and raw. "The First Amended Complaint does not plead facts that make it plausible that a reasonable consumer would expect raw honey to have a mannose level below a specific level," Jenkins wrote. "Even under the assumption that an ordinary consumer would not expect 'raw' honey to contain foreign sugars, the First Amended Complaint does not support an inference that Organic Raw Honey had such foreign sugars." Walmart argued in its motion to dismiss that its "Raw Honey" and "Organic Raw Honey" satisfy the U.S. Department of Agriculture's definition of "raw honey." It adds the following arguments: -- Wertymer's own lab found no foreign sugars; -- A product's status as organic is not impacted by foreign sugars unless those sugars are prohibited by governing federal regulations; -- Wertymer can't allege the honey he bought is worth less than what he paid for it; -- He alleges no violation of a public policy or conduct so oppressive that consumers couldn't avoid it; -- He can't show Walmart had knowledge any statement was false; -- He does not face threat of future injury; and -- He has not alleged an intention to buy the honey again in the future. [GN] WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Remand Ruling in Little Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy's International, LLC has filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated April 12, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled JEFFREY LITTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:23-CV-03056-MEH, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado-Denver. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from the District Court, City & County of Denver, Colorado, to the District of Colorado on November 17, 2023. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages under the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. On December 15, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On April 12, 2024, Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty entered an Order granting Plaintiff's motion to remand. The appellate case is captioned as Wendy's International, LLC v. Little, Case No. 24-703, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 22, 2024. Defendant-Petitioner WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC is represented by: David Coats, Esq. Cole A. Wist, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS 717 17th Street, Suite 1825 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 830-1776 - and - Jill S. Kirila, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS 2000 Huntington Center 41 South High Street, 20th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-2700 Plaintiff-Respondent JEFFREY LITTLE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, is represented by: Brian Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES LAW OFFICES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 - and - Alexander Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE PO Box 371680, Pmb 44465 Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 WEST REALM: Bids to Sever Claims From Onusz Adversary Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John T. Dorsey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denies the Motions to Sever Claims in the adversary proceeding titled Onusz, et al. v. West Realm Shires Inc., et al., Adv. No. 22-50513-JTD (Bankr. D. Del.). Judge Dorsey filed a letter explaining it is his ruling on the Motions to Sever Claims filed by Caroline Ellison, Nishad Singh, and Zixiao ("Gary") Wang (together, "FTX Executive Defendants"). After FTX Trading Ltd. ("FTX") filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2022, four FTX customers ("Plaintiffs") filed this adversary proceeding against a combination of the FTX Executive Defendants and the Debtors ("Debtor-Defendants"). The Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory relief against the Debtor-Defendants, and (2) damages under various common law causes of action against the Debtor-Defendants and the FTX Executive Defendants, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and conversion. The common law causes of action are jointly pled against the Debtor-Defendants and the FTX Executive Defendants. In June 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated certain class action cases pending against the FTX Executive Defendants into an FTX multidistrict litigation ("MDL"), In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exch. Collapse Litig., No. MDL 3076, 2023 WL 3829242 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. June 5, 2023). The FTX Executive Defendants subsequently filed the Motions to Sever in this Court, arguing that the claims against them should instead be transferred to and tried before the MDL. The FTX Executive Defendants contend that severance here would promote judicial economy because the MDL is already hearing similar claims against them. In addition to these Motions to Sever, the FTX Executive Defendants filed a motion before the MDL to transfer this adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court to the MDL, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. The Plaintiffs disagree with the FTX Executive Defendants' contention that severance weighs in favor of judicial economy, pointing out that the FTX MDL involves more than a dozen cases focused not on the misappropriation of customer deposits, but rather on violations of Florida and California law for selling "unregistered securities." The Plaintiffs further contend that the FTX Executive Defendants are motivated by a desire to avoid payment rather than a desire to promote convenience or judicial economy. The MDL Panel denied the FTX Executive Defendants' motion to transfer in April 2024. In its opinion, the MDL Panel noted that the proposal to separate the claims against the FTX Executive Defendants is not practicable. Many of the claims asserted in this proceeding are pled against the Debtor-Defendants and FTX Executive Defendants jointly. The MDL Panel also noted that several of the questions at issue in this adversary proceeding would be answered through the course of the bankruptcy as a whole, and, therefore, judicial economy weighed in favor of denying the transfer to MDL. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to drop a party or sever any claim against a party. Judicial economy is the primary focus of the Rule 21 analysis, Judge Dorsey notes. Consideration of these factors here leads Judge Dorsey to conclude that the Motions to Sever should be denied. Following the MDL Panel's April 2024 holding, Judge Dorsey explains that the movants' arguments regarding judicial economy have no persuasive effect. The Defendants argued that judicial economy weighed in favor of transferring these cases so that the claims against them could be tried before the MDL Panel, which the movants believed was a more appropriate forum for the resolution of the claims. Judge Dorsey notes that the MDL Panel has clearly denied the FTX Executive Defendants' request to transfer its claims. Since the Panel has foreclosed the possibility of hearing these claims, Judge Dorsey points out that the movants' argument is moot, and they have presented no alternative argument as to why severance would promote judicial economy. Additionally, severance here does not appear likely either to be convenient or to help achieve a quick resolution. Should the claims be severed, Judge Dorsey points out they would become independent action, therefore, requiring the parties to manage an additional action in an additional forum. The most convenient and expeditious means to adjudicate these claims is to litigate them within the adversary proceeding before this Court. Finally, Judge Dorsey sees no basis for an argument that denying the Motions to Sever would prejudice any party. Judge Dorsey points out agrees with the Plaintiffs' contention that granting severance carries a greater risk of prejudice to the Plaintiffs by causing "needless complication and delay." Hence, the Motions to Sever are denied. Judge Dorsey says the parties should submit an appropriate form of order under certification of counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Letter dated May 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/zjchuttw from PacerMonitor.com. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Appliance Buyout -------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Whirlpool and AIG WarrantyGuard have misrepresented extended service plans offered for Whirlpool appliances in that the plans neither provide a level of coverage comparable to the manufacturer's actual warranty nor cover 100 percent of the parts and labor necessary to repair a consumer's appliance at no cost. In particular, the 63-page Whirlpool lawsuit claims the companies' marketing gives consumers the impression that the plans are being offered by Whirlpool -- not AIG -- and essentially operate as an extension to the appliance's original manufacturer warranty. Instead, the suit says, the extended service plans at issue offer only "limited" coverage and contain a provision that allows the companies, at their sole discretion, to refuse to repair a covered appliance and instead buy it back from the consumer with a one-time cash payment. This cash payment "does not make the consumer whole" as it is capped at 75 percent of the purchase price of the bought-out appliance, the case says. Ultimately, the buyout provision in the Whirlpool extended repair plans, covering Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Amana, Maytag, Kenmore and JennAir appliances, serves to help the company generate "unfair profits" at the expense of unsuspecting consumers who "would have no reason to suspect that the coverage they bargained and paid for will be limited in such a manner," the breach-of-contract lawsuit alleges. The plaintiff, a Washington consumer, purchased a Geek Squad Protection Plan for her KitchenAid dishwasher at the time she bought the appliance from Best Buy, the filing says. The woman was subsequently contacted by co-defendant AIG WarrantyGuard, an AIG subsidiary and the obligor for Whirlpool's extended service plans in most states, which offered to sell her a service plan at a price lower than what she paid for the Geek Squad plan, the suit shares. "Being a retiree on a budget, she cancelled her [Geek Squad] Plan and purchased a KitchenAid Plan to save money," the case relays. Unfortunately, the amount of money the plaintiff saved by switching to a KitchenAid service plan was "more than offset" by what she had to pay to buy a new appliance when Whirlpool and AIG WarrantyGuard bought out her dishwasher, the lawsuit reads. Several months before the defendants bought the plaintiff out of her dishwasher, the woman filed a warranty claim for a different issue, the case shares. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, in disregard of their service plan representations, required her to find her own repair technician to resolve the issue, pay out of pocket to cover the repair, and then seek reimbursement from Whirlpool and AIG WarrantyGuard because, according to the companies, they had no repair technicians in her area. Per the case, the plaintiff was unable to find a repair technician who was willing to perform the repairs in accordance with the defendants' conditions. "Plaintiff ended up receiving no benefits for her claim and had to make do with a malfunctioning dishwasher until a subsequent failure caused Defendants to buyout the appliance," the complaint states, alleging the plaintiff's troubles with Whirlpool and AIG WarrantyGuard are not isolated incidents given that thousands of consumers each year purchase service plans "under the mistaken belief" that they are buying extensions to Whirlpool's manufacturer's warranties. Overall, the defendants' "fraudulent and misleading conduct" renders the Whirlpool extended repair plans at issue "essentially worthless," or, alternatively, slashes their value to only a fraction of that paid by consumers for the plans, the suit claims. The lawsuit looks to cover all persons who, within the last four years, bought a Whirlpool extended repair plan for an appliance that was domiciled in the state of Washington at the time they bought the plan. [GN] XIRIUZ LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Menendez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ARANI MENENDEZ, individually and other similarly situated v. XIRIUZ LLC, and HIRALDO DE LA ROSA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21763-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Xiriuz employed Plaintiff Arani Menendez as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly warehouse employee, from approximately August 10, 2001, to April 05, 2024, or 138 weeks. Plaintiff Menendez worked 45 hours weekly. However, Plaintiff was paid for only 40 regular hours. Defendants automatically deducted five working hours from Plaintiff's wages every week, corresponding to one hour of lunchtime daily, even though Plaintiff was never able to take bonafide lunch breaks., says the suit. Defendant Xiriuz LLC is a distributor of electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies. Defendant's place of business is 4340 West 104th Street, Hialeah, Florida The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com YELP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Schabot Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- KELLIE SCHABOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YELP INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00236 (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Schabot worked for Defendant as an inside sales representative from January 8, 2024, until February 29, 2024, solely working remotely from her home in Clermont, FL. Allegedly, the Defendant implemented unlawful schemes to avoid its full overtime pay obligations under the FLSA. These schemes include not paying overtime hours for work performed while suffered to work off the clock and not paying overtime for those the hours they performed work while clocked out for meal breaks or which were not bonafide meal breaks. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Yelp Inc. owns and operates the Yelp.com website and Yelp mobile app, which publishes reviews about businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road #225 Tampa, FL 33626 Telemarketing: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com [*] FCC Voices Concerns Over Data Sharing in Connected Vehicles --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron H. Jacoby and Andrea M. Gumushian of ArentFox Schiff reports that connected cars have been on the FTC's radar for years. Its most recent blog post specifically highlights the Commission's concerns regarding over collecting -- and the risk of secondary uses -- of sensitive data, such as precise geolocation and biometric information. Its recent enforcement actions show how the Commission will prioritize protecting consumers against the illegal collection, use, and disclosure of their sensitive personal data. The FTC notes that using sensitive data for automated decision-making can also be unlawful; using this data to build algorithms could create liability for harmful automated decisions. Further, secret disclosure of sensitive data can be an unfair practice. The Recent Class Action Involving Data Sharing with Insurance Companies On the litigation front, unfair vehicle data sharing practices are making a scene in federal court. In his complaint, Plaintiff Romeo Chicco claims General Motors ("GM") and OnStar sold or shared his driving data without his knowledge or consent, significantly impacting his ability to find automobile insurance coverage. Once Mr. Chicco finally did find adequate insurance coverage, his rate nearly doubled based on information collected through OnStar's Smart Driver Program and contained in a LexisNexis driver behavior report. In compiling his data, and preparing and using that driver behavior report, Mr. Chicco alleges LexisNexis violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, while GM and OnStar violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and invaded his privacy under Florida common law. The complaint alleges a lack of transparency in and around how driver behavior data can be collected and shared. Mr. Chicco purchased a new 2021 Cadillac (in which OnStar is included as a standard component) from a dealership in Delray Beach, Florida. According to the complaint, the purchase agreement and related documents made no mention of OnStar, LexisNexis, data-sharing, or anything privacy-related. Representatives from the dealership told Mr. Chicco that the OnStar Smart Driver Program "wasn't sold at the store," and that OnStar "did not release information to a dealer regarding when and who signed up for the [data sharing] program." Notably, the complaint alleges that Mr. Chicco downloaded the MyCadillac mobile application soon after leaving the dealership and received a welcome email from Cadillac, which did not mention OnStar's Smart Driver Program. Mr. Chicco's billing statements did not include any purchases or payments for OnStar-related services, and neither the welcome email nor subsequent diagnostic reports he received via email mentioned data-sharing with third parties. All in all, Mr. Chicco alleges he was not given any reason to believe, whether through his interaction with the dealer or subsequent emails from GM or OnStar, that his vehicle data, or any driver behavior data, was being shared with third parties. Fast forward two years later, plaintiff had to look for new insurance and reached out to several providers. Mr. Chicco claims he was summarily denied coverage each time he attempted to purchase car insurance, ultimately learning the denials were based on information contained in his "LexisNexis driver behavior report." He eventually received the report and discovered 258 recorded "driving events," including sharp accelerations, hard braking, and high speeds, among other statistics. Mr. Chicco inquired with LexisNexis and GM/OnStar, attempting to untangle how his data had been shared to create the driver report. None of the representatives he spoke with could tell him how he ever became enrolled in the Smart Driver Program. Mr. Chicco believes OnStar started sharing his data with LexisNexis after he downloaded the MyCadillac mobile application, despite his lack of express consent and enrolment in the Smart Driver Program. Mr. Chicco eventually obtained OnStar's SmartDriver FAQ, which confirmed that the OnStar Smart Driver program requires separate enrollment than other basic OnStar services, and that the program is not designed to collect the driving behavior data of its customers without their consent. Upon consent and enrollment, the vehicle will collect specific driving behavior data, including hard braking events, hard acceleration events, speeds over 80 miles per hour, average speed, late night driving, when a trip occurs, and the number of miles driven. Usage-Based Insurance Is Not New; the Scope and Quantity of Data Collected from Vehicles Is. Usage-based automotive insurance is not a new concept. The first usage-based insurance program was launched by Progressive Insurance Company in 1997. These programs were designed to assess driver risk based on miles driven: fewer miles, lower risk, lower insurance rate. Since the late 1990s, many insurance companies have followed suit. But today the calculation is more complicated; there are more factors that can be considered in whether someone exhibits "good or "bad" driving behavior. Since 1997, telematics data and vehicle technology have evolved dramatically. The type of data that can be (and is) collected from a new vehicle (and potentially shared with insurance companies and other data brokers) is more sensitive, more personally identifiable, and in significantly greater quantities per vehicle than when these usage-based insurance programs first started. Dealers Should Re-Examine Their Data Sharing Disclosure Practices at the Point of Sale Vehicle data collection -- and what dealerships know or don't know about what OEMs are doing with customers' data -- can certainly harm the customer and may ultimately find its way back to harm the dealership in the form of an enforcement action or class action. While a dealer may be transparent with customers about what the dealership is doing with customers' data, that same transparency may not exist between the dealer and OEM. The dealership may not be in the best position to provide customers with the most transparent, complete picture of how their data is being collected and shared at the point of sale. The dealership where Mr. Chicco purchased his Cadillac is not named as a party in his class action, but Mr. Chicco's allegations against GM and OnStar are intimately linked to his experience at the dealership, and his understanding of what he was signing up for at the time he purchased his vehicle. Mr. Chicco's experience should serve as a warning to dealers of how a lack of transparency with respect to vehicle data can create an impression of deceptive trade practices, and also turn customers off from the brand. The New York Times article that originally broke this story references a "Palm Beach Cadillac owner" who "said he would never buy another car from GM. He is planning to sell his Cadillac." So not only does failing to disclose data sharing practices create legal risk under privacy and consumer protection laws; it's also just bad business. Recent State Laws Related Specifically to Vehicle Data and Connected Car Technology Recent shifts in the U.S. privacy regulatory landscape with respect to vehicle data collection and sharing, should make manufacturers and dealers reconsider whether they provide adequate transparency to customers regarding data sharing at the point of sale; are current practices good enough to meet the technological and regulatory moment? Current consumer-oriented state privacy laws don't deal directly with the types of vehicle data insurance providers are interested in; traditional "telematics" data. Vehicle history, brake data, speed, and hard accelerations aren't the types of data defined as "personal" by the state privacy laws. Since 2023, state legislatures have been introducing vehicle-related privacy bills that focus on the types of data not typically dealt with in the state comprehensive privacy laws. New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, and California have all passed or introduced legislation related specifically to vehicle data. These recent laws aim to enhance privacy protections related to in-car surveillance technologies, such as sensors, cameras, and even connected car applications that capture vehicle telematics and location data. New Jersey enacted a law in January 2024 requiring dealers to delete consumers' personal information from vehicles they sell or trade in. It is likely the information implicated in this law consists of anything that could be stored in a vehicle infotainment system, or transferred to the vehicle via a Bluetooth connection. This could include navigation history, geolocation data, internet browsing history, text and voice communication records, and garage codes. Tennessee proposed a law in January 2024 to develop a registry of drivers who do not want car companies to collect their data, which would require automakers to give drivers a right to opt out. In New York, a bill was introduced in the state Senate earlier this year that would update New York's insurance laws to require automotive insurers to disclose how they factor telematics data into automotive insurance rates. In California, several proposed bills consider connected vehicle issues. One, signed into law in October 2023, requires auto manufacturers to disclose the presence of in-vehicle cameras. In sum, the regulatory landscape for connected vehicle data is in a massive state of flux. Manufacturers and dealers can protect themselves by (1) understanding what data flows through vehicles and how; (2) providing increased transparency to customers at the point of sale; and (3) limiting their collection and use of personal data to what is necessary to provide the product or service. [GN] [*] Maryland Nursing Facilities Face Class Action on Lax Oversight ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Moore, writing for WTOPNews, reports that a class action lawsuit filed in federal court this week alleges the Maryland Department of Health has failed to conduct annual inspections of dozens of nursing facilities and allowed a backlog of complaints over care to pile up -- leaving residents with disabilities vulnerable. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, lists five plaintiffs -- all residents of Maryland nursing facilities and all with serious mobility impairments. The lawsuit lists several accounts of poor care and neglect, including residents being left in soiled clothing for hours and others confined to their beds for weeks. Overall, the suit claims the department has allowed 181 nursing facilities to go at least 16 months without conducting an inspection, known as a survey. That's 81% of the state's 225 licensed nursing facilities. The department has allowed more than 100 facilities to go four years without an annual inspection, the suit claims. "When MDH fails to carry out its oversight responsibilities, dangerously poor-quality care within nursing facilities goes undetected and uncorrected," the lawsuit stated. The department's performance completing annual surveys "is among the worst" in the U.S., the suit claims, with only one other state -- Kentucky -- "more delinquent than Maryland." WTOP reached out the Maryland Department of Health for comment on the lawsuit. In an email, a spokesman said: "The Maryland Department of Health is committed to providing the best care to Maryland residents. We do not have any further comment on active litigation." The suit was filed by the Public Justice Center and the group Justice in Aging. It seeks class action status, arguing the department's alleged lax oversight violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and state regulations. The lawsuit also points to a serious backlog of complaints brought directly by residents -- some alleging "serious allegations of harm to residents" -- that the lawsuit says have not been investigated. While complaints raising issues that amount to what the department considers "immediate jeopardy" to a resident are investigated promptly, in line with state regulations, the department regularly allows other complaints to languish, according to the lawsuit. Overall, over the past three years, the department reported some 13,173 complaints and facility-related reports, of which fewer than half have been investigated, according to the lawsuit. "This results in nursing facility residents waiting months, or even years, for their complaints that they were harmed by abuse, neglect, poor-quality care, or rights violations, to be investigated," the lawsuit stated. In one account included in the lawsuit, lawyers said a 54-year-old woman with muscular dystrophy, who uses a wheelchair, had been left in soiled clothing for up to two hours waiting for staff to respond to her call bell. The lawsuit says the facility, whose name is redacted, is often without hot water and despite the woman filing a complaint last September, the department has not yet investigated. Another resident cited in the lawsuit, a 61-year-old man with paralysis of all four limbs, has been confined to his bed in his shared room since March 2023, with the exception of medical appointments. [GN] ********* 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 ***