/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240605.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 5, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 113
Headlines
146 BISCAYNE: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation
24 NORTH RESTAURANT: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
31-W INSULATION: Vaughn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Files 57 Lawsuits Over Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Hannah Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Harper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Michauskas Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
A & G GYROS: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Paz Claims
AARON'S LLC: Rubio Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
ACE HARDWARE: Randall Sues Over Recent Cyberattack and Data Breach
ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ADR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delancey and Drozd Say
AIKOU FLEMINGTON: Vega Sues Over Website's Noncompliance With ADA
AIRBNB TRAVEL: Hawley and Krzyzek Sue Over Unlawful Fees
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Settlement in Stevenson Gets Final Nod
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Contract
AMERESCO INC: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Certifies Class Action Over ESG Pension
AMERICAN SENIOR SERVICES: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
AMERICO HOSPITALITY: Mortland Sues Over ADA Violation
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Class Cert Response Extended to April 25, 2025
AMN HEALTHCARE: Conahan Suit Removed to C.D. California
APARTMENT INCOME: Coleman Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
APPLE INC: Cross Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
APPLE INC: Crucco Sues Over Anticompetitive Actions
APPLE INC: Expert Disclosures Deadline in Hazlitt Stayed
APPLE INC: Faces Deluca Suit Over Smartphone Monopoly
APPLE INC: Kouyate et al. Sue Over Monopoly in Smartphone Market
APPLE INC: Oraheta Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over iPhone 7 Audio Chip Defect
ARDEN CLAIMS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sauray Suit Alleges
ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gounaris Alleges
ASCENSION SAINT THOMAS: Patient Sues Over Breach of Medical Info
ASR GROUP: Kedzie Boulevard Cafe Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
ASR GROUP: Sugar Bake Shop Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price Fixing
AT&T INC: Berendt Sues Over Failure to Adequately Secure PII
AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sutherlin Alleges
ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Sets July 18 Settlement Final Approval Hearing
BAKER TILLY US: Takahashi Suit Removed to C.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Ruozzi Sues Over Deceptive Credit Card Practices
BARILLA AMERICA: Sinatro Suit Seeks Class Certification
BARTLETT DAIRY: Miley Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
BASF CORP: Film-Forming Foam Contains PFAS, City of Camden Says
BASIT MOTIWALA: Seeks Extension to File Reply to Class Status Bid
BAVARIAN MANSION: Sanchez and Nunez Sue Over Labor Law Violations
BETA BIONICS: Navarro Suit Removed to C.D. California
BIOGEN INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Information
BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Jones Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Gujral Suit Seeks Class Certification
BNP PARIBAS: Parties Seek Extension to File Public Copies of Docs
BOMBARDIER INC: Judge Certifies Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BOOZ ALLEN: Langley Class Suit Voluntary Dismissed
BOSTON FOUNDRY: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Uses ICBC to Tax People for Healthcare Costs
BROWN-FORMAN CORP: Styles Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Products
BRUTLAG TRUCKE: Tjaden Files Suit in D. Minnesota
BUBBZ & SUDDZ: Baez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
C & J CLARK RETAIL: Biddle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAESARS BALTIMORE: Faces Trento Wage and Hour Suit
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Boghossian Sues Over Misrepresentations
CARE AND DEVELOPMENT: Warren Seeks to Certify Collection Action
CARTER'S RETAIL: Fulli Suit Removed to E.D. California
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Baker Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
CENCORA INC: Faces Wolford Suit Over Allleged Data Breach
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Stoneburner Says
CENTENNIAL BANK: Autry Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Ridpath & Karami Suit Over Data Breach
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Renewed Hope Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
CHARLOTTE METRO: Arbitration Amendment to Member Contracts Valid
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Brawner Suit Transferred to D. Utah
CINTAS CORPORATION: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California
CITY OF HOPE: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
CLUB CAR WASH: Moser Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Missouri
COINBASE INC: Ontario Court Dismisses Cryptocurrency Class Action
COLDWELL BANKER: Weekes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
COSTAR GROUP: Case Schedule Order Entered in Portillo Class Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: $3.45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 5
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Shakoor-Delgado Seeks Expense Reimbursement
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Claims Tossed
DAIKIN COMFORT: Perry Suit Removed to C.D. California
DENNY'S FASHION: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Thorne Suit Claims
DIMENSIONS GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Thompson Says
DIRECT DIGITAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
DOM STORES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Danso Suit Says
DOXIMITY INC: Continues to Defend Dalton Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
DOXIMITY INC: Continues to Defend Kissler Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
DREAMLAND BABY: Fehrenbach Alleges Deceptive Sale of Sleep Products
ENVATO PTY: Plotsker Seeks Damages for Video Privacy Violations
EPSILON DATA: Thompson ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
EVANSTON, IL: Judicial Watch Sues Over Racial Discrimination
EXTO INC: Krueger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
FASTLY INC: Faces Class Action Over Violations of Securities Law
FBCS INC: Morgan Sues Over Data Security Failure
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: MacDermott Seeks to Certify Class
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Reichbart Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Stallone Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Sayce Wins Class Certification Bid
GGP INC: $42.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 16
GNC HOLDINGS: Soto Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements
GOLDEN NUGGET: $22MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9
GOOGLE LLC: Violates Driver's Privacy Protection Act, Wilson Says
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Underpays Total Loss Claims, Abbassy Says
GRAHAM WINE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Martin Suit Says
GRAY MEDIA: McCausland Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
GROVE INC: Tripline Sues Over Unlawful Work Scheduling Practices
GUGGENHEIM FUNDS: $18.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9
GUGGENHEIM FUNDS: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set July 9
HAMMITT INC: Lewis Sues Over Breaches of Caller ID Rules
HONEYGROW LLC: Violates Workweek Employment Standards, Suit Says
HSNI LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
HUISH OUTDOORS: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Faces Jones Suit Over Resignation Requirement
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Read Sues Over Motor Vehicle's False Ads
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Winkelvoss et al. Sue Over Unlawful Data Collection
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Court Certifies Action for Settlement Purposes
INDUSTRIAL PAINTING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Baker Alleges
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: Newman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
JDBN LLC: Faces Utomo Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
JIFFY LUBE: Court Certifies Class in Fuentes Suit
JOHN CARNEY: Parties in Gibbs Must Submit Joint Status Report
KATE SPADE NEW YORK: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
KEENA STAFFING: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Rosevear Says
KENS SPRAY: Gonzalez Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS: Boulter Files Suit in D. Colorado
KIMBERLITE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Says
KNOX COUNTY, IL: JBH Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Children
KORRES NATURAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Tarr Says
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Action Over 'No Preservatives' Label
KRAFT HEINZ: Hortin Suit Removed to S.D. California
L'OREAL USA: Abednego Sues Over High Levels of Benzene
LABOR SOURCE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 22
LAWN CARE: Haga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
LEE'S HOUSE: Lin Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed
LEWIS BROTHERS: Grutzius Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
LI AUTO: Chaudhary Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
LINCARE INC: Morris Loses Bid to File Class Cert Exhibit Under Seal
LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Excessively High Fees
LIVE NATION: Faces Steves Suit Over Free Market Competition
LIVE NATION: Leifer Sues Over Anticompetitive Ticket Sale Practices
LOANDEPOT INC: Ryan Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
LOCUST MEDICAL: Jackson Loses Bid to Certify Class
MACLEAN POWER: Hodges Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 25
MERCURY MISSION: Burton Suit Removed to C.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Temporarily Under Seal
METHODIST HEALTHCARE: Faces Wilson Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
MEXICO LINDO: Pedraza Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
MG JV: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages, Palcher Suit Says
MILLENIUM HEALTH: Judge Denies Dismissal of Telemarketing Suit
MISS TOYAS: Johnson Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Denial of Wallenstein Class Cert Bid
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Settles Compensation, Revenue Sharing Suit
NATIONAL MENTOR: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Papers
NEW AGE LOUNGE: Faces FLSA Class Suit Over Tip Pooling Violations
NEW YORK BEACH: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Under NYLL, Ramones Says
NEW YORK: Anderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
NEW YORK: M.G. Sues Over Unconstitutional Sexual Assault Reform Act
NIKOLA CORP: Face Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
NISSAN NORTH: Taylor Sues Over Data Security Failures
NORTHERN LIGHT: Faces Class Action Over Information Sharing
NOV INC: Taylor Sues Over Invalidation of Resignation Requirement
NURTURY AT FLANDREAU: Beda Suit Wins Conditional Certification
NURTURY AT FLANDREAU: Discovery Must Be Completed by July 11
NYC PET.COM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
OPENAI INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Illegal Personal Data Use
OREGON: Settles Foster Care Class Suit With Third Party Expert
ORTHOCONNECTICUT PLLC: Salerno Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
PARK STREET: Vargas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PFIZER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Class Action
PHARMCORP LLC: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PRATT EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lemache Says
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Class Certification Bids in Marshall Due Sept. 6
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Harker Alleges
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Kearns Sues Over Data Security Failure
PURPOSE POINT: Bid to Dismiss Gomez-Echeverria Suit Tossed
QUANTUM-SI INC: Faces Farzad Class Suit in Delaware
RING LLC: Class Action Settlement in Privacy Suit Gets Final Nod
ROACH BUSTERS: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
S.C. JOHNSON: McGrath Sues Over False Disinfectant's Labeling
SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces Thompson Class Suit Over TCPA Violations
SIMPLIFIED TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Truck Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages
SINGTEL OPTUS: Court Dismisses Appeal to Keep Cyber Attack Report
SLOY DAHL: Nestler Sues Over Imprudent Management of SDH Funds
SMKD DALLAS: Lightfoot Sues Over Unlawful Reimbursement Policy
SOHO HOUSE: Correa Suit Removed to C.D. California
SPOTIFY USA: Mazumder Sues Over "Car Thing" Device Deactivation
ST. JOHN KNITS: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
STANLEY STEEMER: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 16
STATEWIDE TRANSFER: Allen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Becerra-Paez Files Suit in N.D. New York
TALL TIMBERS: Smith Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
TELADOC HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 16
TELEFLEX INC: Jones Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
TEMPUR SEALY: Anyasulu Suit Removed to N.D. California
TEMPUR SEALY: Caraffa Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
TIM HORTONS: Judge Rejects Former Baker's Proposed Class Action
TRINSEO LLC: Residents Eligible for Chemical Spill Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: East Fork Seeks Review of EPA Final Rule
UNITED STATES: Oklahoma Gas Seeks Review of EPA Final Rule
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Violations of Securities Law
VITALS CONSUMER: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Missouri, Kansas Class
VJR ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settles Emergency Brake Class Action
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Miner-Vargas Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Stucky Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Jackson Seeks Proper Overtime Wages for Agents
WALMART INC: Morris Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: PG&TGDP Sues Over Improper Taking of Property
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Draining Customers' Accounts
WELLS FARGO: Palma Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
WEST MARINE: Pardo Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
WILLIAM MARSHALL: Brandon Seeks to Certify Class
WILLIAMSBURG RUNNING: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Martin Says
XIAO-I CORP: Rosen Investigates Securities Class Action Suit
YALE-NEW HAVEN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ruilova
[*] Port Moody, BC Supports Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies
[*] Superior Court of Quebec Certifies Recyclable Bags Class Action
[*] Tennessee Passes Law Restricting Data Breach Class Action Suits
*********
146 BISCAYNE: Longhini Sues Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Douglas Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. 146 BISCAYNE OWNER LLC, a Florida Limited liability
company, Case No. 1:24-cv-21462-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2024), is
brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the
individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and
businesses located therein.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property in February 7, 2024, and
encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected
his ability to use and enjoy the property. He plans to return to
and visit the Commercial Property and the other business located
within the Commercial Property, in order to avail himself of the
goods and services offered to the public at the business therein,
if the property/business become accessible.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property and businesses therein. The barriers to
access at Defendant's Commercial Property and businesses within the
Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's
ability to visit the Commercial Property and endangered his safety.
The barriers to access, have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
The Defendant owned and operated a commercial property located in
Miami, Florida and holds itself out to the public as "YVE
Hotel."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen E. Lungarelli, Esq.
ADAVOCATE, LLC
777 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 400
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-481-9809
Email: Karen@Adadvocates.org
Ed@Adadvocates.org
George@Adadvocates.org
Lili@Adadvocates.org
24 NORTH RESTAURANT: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DAVID ARGUETA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 24 NORTH RESTAURANT LLC
d/b/a 24 NORTH FINER DINER and d/b/a BETHPAGE BURGER BAR and
HARPINDER SINGH and SANJAY VAZ, as individuals, Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-03724 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2024) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by Defendants as a main chef,
stocker, and cleaner while performing other miscellaneous duties,
from in or around November 2019 until in or around March 2020 and
from in or around September 2020 until in or around June 2021. The
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours weekly but
Defendants failed to pay him the proper overtime wages. In
addition, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and
NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Located in Bethpage, NY, 24 North Restaurant LLC owns and operates
the restaurant, 24 North Finer Diner. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
31-W INSULATION: Vaughn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
DANARIO VAUGHN, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 31-W INSULATION CO., INC., and
CONNIE WILLIAMSON, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02341
(W.D. Tenn., May 21, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than 40
hours per week within weekly pay periods for Defendants without
being paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay
for all such overtime hours. In addition, Defendants failed to keep
accurate time records related to his the compensable work time,
says the Plaintiff.
The 31-W Insulation Co., Inc., provides insulation services to
homes and businesses Tennessee and throughout the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood @jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Files 57 Lawsuits Over Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Legal Group, LLC filed 57 lawsuits seeking class action status
against the Defendants v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC. Each of the complaints are stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
All of the complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed
in April 19, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are:
Bruno Gaita. Case No. 2:24-cv-02194-RMG.
Randall Cates. Case No. 2:24-cv-02230-RMG.
Robert Caulk. Case No. 2:24-cv-02232-RMG.
Jason Causey. Case No. 2:24-cv-02212-RMG.
Charles Devaughn. Case No. 2:24-cv-02196-RMG
Chatnarine Diaram. Case No. 2:24-cv-02197-RMG.
Paul Christy. Case No. 2:24-cv-02227-RMG.
Cletus Cavitt. Case No. 2:24-cv-02198-RMG.
Dan Soto. Case No. 2:24-cv-02199-RMG.
Larry Delaughter. Case No. 2:24-cv-02221-RMG.
William Dixon. Case No. 2:24-cv-02248-RMG.
Stephen Donahue. Case No. 2:24-cv-02241-RMG.
Donald Flynn. Case No. 2:24-cv-02200-RMG.
Donnie Draughon. Case No. 2:24-cv-02201-RMG.
Douglas Tolley. Case No. 2:24-cv-02202-RMG.
Joseph Dryden. Case No. 2:24-cv-02217-RMG.
Robert Drzata. Case No. 2:24-cv-02233-RMG.
Steven Ekberg. Case No. 2:24-cv-02243-RMG.
Byron Eldridge. Case No. 2:24-cv-02195-RMG.
James Ellisor. Case No. 2:24-cv-02210-RMG.
Eric Toll. Case No. 2:24-cv-02203-RMG.
Fernand Gandolfo. Case No. 2:24-cv-02204-RMG.
Kevin Ford. Case No. 2:24-cv-02219-RMG.
Gary Walthall. Case No. 2:24-cv-02205-RMG.
Glen Terrell. Case No. 2:24-cv-02206-RMG.
Robert Greene. Case No. 2:24-cv-02234-RMG.
William Gustafson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02249-RMG.
Jeffrey Thomas. Case No. 2:24-cv-02213-RMG.
Jerome Sumbler. Case No. 2:24-cv-02214-RMG.
John Dooley. Case No. 2:24-cv-02215-RMG.
Jonathan Dean. Case No. 2:24-cv-02216-RMG.
Kenneth Trenhaile. Case No. 2:24-cv-02218-RMG.
Kurt Hansen. Case No. 2:24-cv-02220-RMG.
Leon Golemi. Case No. 2:24-cv-02222-RMG.
Leroy Sobieck. Case No. 2:24-cv-02223-RMG.
Mark Granito. Case No. 2:24-cv-02224-RMG.
Michael Taylor. Case No. 2:24-cv-02225-RMG.
Patrick Golembeck. Case No. 2:24-cv-02226-RMG.
Philip Swaney, Jr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02229-RMG.
Rocky Springer. Case No. 2:24-cv-02235-RMG.
Roderick Davidson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02236-RMG.
Rodger Ezell. Case No. 2:24-cv-02237-RMG.
Ronald Stark. Case No. 2:24-cv-02238-RMG.
Russell Gotha. Case No. 2:24-cv-02239-RMG.
Peter Southworth. Case No. 2:24-cv-02228-RMG.
Stan Cole. Case No. 2:24-cv-02240-RMG.
Stephen Elks. Case No. 2:24-cv-02242-RMG.
Alfred Stevens. Case No. 2:24-cv-02191-RMG.
Susan Cerone. Case No. 2:24-cv-02244-RMG.
Antonio Talucad. Case No. 2:24-cv-02193-RMG.
Thomas Venard. Case No. 2:24-cv-02245-RMG.
Tony Stanfill. Case No. 2:24-cv-02246-RMG.
Richard Villegas. Case No. 2:24-cv-02231-RMG.
James Vonoelhoffen. Case No. 2:24-cv-02211-RMG.
Wade Thompson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02247-RMG.
William Wedel. Case No. 2:24-cv-02250-RMG.
Willie Wilson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02251-RMG.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard W. Green, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02184-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 18, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for
heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in
hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal
liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers
contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional
PFAS.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Hannah Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Hannah, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-02140-RMG (D.S.C., April 18, 2024), is brought for damages
stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Columbus, Ohio due to
personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson, Esq.
Marc S. Whitehead, Esq.
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Harper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Joseph Harper, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02003-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 17, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for
heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in
hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal
liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers
contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional
PFAS.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
- and -
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-4063
3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Harris, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-02141-RMG (D.S.C., April 18, 2024), is brought for damages
stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada due to
personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson, Esq.
Marc S. Whitehead, Esq.
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Michauskas Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Michauskas, et al. and others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al, Case No. 2023CP4204510 was removed
from the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit,
Spartanburg County, South Carolina, to the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on May 24, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03194-RMG.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other 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
Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Wesley T. Moran, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway / Suite 300
Post Office Box 3939 (29578-3939)
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577-6412
Phone: (843) 448-3500
Email: wes.moran@nelsonmullins.com
A & G GYROS: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Paz Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CUPERTINO FRANCISCO VINCENTE PAZ, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiff v. A & G GYROS INC., an Illinois corporation
d/b/a WINDY CITY GYROS, NICK TSELEPATIOTIS, an individual, and
STEVE TSELEPATIOTIS, an individual, Defendants, Case No.:
1:24-cv-4163 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago
Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance of the Municipal Code of
Chicago.
The Plaintiff worked as a food preparer, cleaner and kitchen staff
employee at Defendants' restaurant from August, 2020 through April
19, 2024. During the course of his employment, Plaintiff did not
receive proper statutory minimum wages and overtime compensation
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants
concealed their failure to pay minimum wages by paying Plaintiff
with cash wage payments that were not reported to federal and state
tax and revenue agencies and by providing no wage statement
records, says the suit.
A & G Gyrus, Inc. operates the Windy City Gyros restaurant located
on North Broadway in Chicago, IL. It is engaged in selling and
serving prepared food and beverages to customers for consumption on
and off its premises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone (312) 322-1100
E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
AARON'S LLC: Rubio Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGEL RUBIO, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AARON'S, LLC, a Georgia
limited liability company; QUINTIN LAKE, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CECG00806 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on May 2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-00526-KES-BAM to the proceeding.
The Complaint purports to allege the following 11 claims for
relief: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay
minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
provide rest periods; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) wage
statement violations; (7) failure to timely pay wages; (8) failure
to indemnify; (9) failure to pay interest on deposits; (10)
violation of California Labor Code; and (11) unfair competition.
Aaron's LLC is an American lease-to-own retailer.[BN]
Defendant AARON'S, LLC is represented by:
Michael A. Wahlander, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1 Post Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 749-9500
ACE HARDWARE: Randall Sues Over Recent Cyberattack and Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Randall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-03158 (N.D.
Ill., April 19, 2024), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack
resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the
possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data
Breach").
The Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure,
exfiltration, and theft of consumers' highly personal information,
including names and Social Security numbers, ("personal identifying
information" or "PII"). The Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its
current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that
data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected
computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").
The Data Breach not only affects current and former employees but
also prospective job applicants and thus, affects consumers who had
no direct employment with Ace Hardware. On information and belief,
cybercriminals bypassed Ace Hardware's inadequate security systems
to access Plaintiff's and the Class Member's PII in its computer
systems. The Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect,
stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former
employees' PII.
On information and belief, the Data Breach began on or around
October 27, 2023, when an unauthorized party gained access to
Defendant's network. Defendant did not become aware of suspicious
activity on its network until October 29, 2023, at least two days
after the Data Breach had first begun, allowing cybercriminals
unfettered access to Plaintiff's and the Class's most Sensitive
Private information during that time.
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings
to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have
known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and
efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating
the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect
Plaintiff's and the Class's PII, failing to adequately notify them
about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach,
Defendant violated state and federal law, causing harm to its
current, former and prospective employees and applicants.
Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of
Defendant's negligence
and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But
Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly
use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Ace Hardware and a Data
Breach victim.
Ace Hardware is the largest retailer-owned hardware cooperative in
the world with over 5,800 locally owned and operated hardware
stores in 60 countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
ADIR INTERNATIONAL: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ADIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04021
(S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website, www.icuracao.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 the
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
ADR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delancey and Drozd Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAHIR UDDIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ADR RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a THE DELANCEY, and ALEKSANDRA
DROZD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03933 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Jahir Uddin was employed by Defendants as a bartender at
The Delancey from approximately 2004 until May 2024. The Plaintiff
and the other tipped employees at The Delancey were paid an hourly
rate that utilized a tip credit and was lower than the full minimum
wage. The Defendants required all service employees to pool their
tips. However, the tip pool at The Delancey illegally included
individuals who had supervisory control over other members of the
food service staff, says the Plaintiff.
ADR Restaurant Inc. owns and operates the restaurant called The
Delancey located in Manhattan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Michael DiGiulio, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
AIKOU FLEMINGTON: Vega Sues Over Website's Noncompliance With ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIKOU FLEMINGTON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-06316 (D.N.J., May 21, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against 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 is a violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the ADA.
Aikou Flemington, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.aikouasiancuisine.com, which serves as the online platform of
Aikou restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
AIRBNB TRAVEL: Hawley and Krzyzek Sue Over Unlawful Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA HAWLEY and KILEY KRZYZEK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AIRBNB TRAVEL INSURANCE
AGENCY LLC and GENERALI ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI S.P.A. (U.S.
BRANCH), Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03142 (N.D. Cal., May 23,
2024) seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful marketing and sale of
travel insurance policies on various booking, travel, and
entertainment websites.
The Defendants purport to provide a supposed "assistance service"
for which they deceptively, unfairly, and unlawfully charge
consumers. These additional non-insurance services are deceptive,
unfair, and unlawful to the extent they offer no additional value
to the consumer. The Defendants have been unjustly enriched by
those unlawful, unfair, and undisclosed fees. Moreover, the
Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of California's False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.
Airbnb Travel Insurance sells the insurance policies offered by
Generali on Airbnb.com. The company acts as the agent of Generali.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Settlement in Stevenson Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA STEVENSON, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., ET AL., Case No. 4:15-cv-04788-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:
-- granting motion for final approval of class action settlement;
and
-- granting motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service
awards.
Class Counsel is awarded $7,500,00 in attorneys' fees and
$345,238.33.in litigation costs. Plaintiff Andrea Stevenson
is granted an incentive award of $5,000.
The parties reached a settlement prior to class certification with
the assistance of experienced mediator Sanford Kingsley.
The Settlement Agreement, defines the class as:
"All current and former Allstate California auto insurance
Primary
Policy Holders whose total premiums were calculated, at any time
on
or after July 1, 2016, based on Allstate's selection of a rating
factor relativity exceeding both the Current and Indicated
rating
factor relativities for certain coverages in connection with the
Years Licensed and/or Multipolicy rating factors. Specifically,
those Primary Policy Holders include (a) any Primary Policy
Holder
whose premiums were determined based on licensure for 29 or more
years and had Comprehensive coverage, (b) any Primary Policy
Holder
whose premiums were determined based on licensure of 34 or more
addition to their auto policy had a condo, life, and/or mobile
home
policy and did not have a renters policy."
The Plaintiff filed the putative class action complaint on Nov. 5,
2015 against defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate
Indemnity Company alleging the use of elasticity of demand when
formulating rate factors for automotive insurance in California.
Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fH6rBG at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Action reports that Ally Financial
class action alleges bank breached military servicemember duties.
Who: Ryan Thompson filed a class action lawsuit against Ally
Financial Inc.
Why: Thompson claims Ally Financial breached its duty with military
servicemembers by failing to allow them to terminate their motor
vehicle leases.
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in North Carolina federal
court.
Auto financer Ally Financial knowingly breached its duty to
military servicemembers by refusing to allow them to terminate
their motor vehicle leases, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Ryan Thompson's class action lawsuit claims Ally
Financial would not let him terminate his motor vehicle lease,
despite the fact he properly submitted the "appropriate
documentation" that would legally allow him to do so.
Thompson, a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps, argues
servicemembers are guaranteed to be able to terminate a residential
or motor vehicle lease under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(SCRA), under certain conditions.
"Defendant knowingly breached the duties it owes to servicemembers
when it refused to permit Plaintiff to terminate his motor vehicle
lease, despite his proper submission of the appropriate
documentation," the Ally Financial class action says.
Thompson wants to represent a nationwide class of U.S. military
servicemembers who properly requested to terminate a motor vehicle
lease under the SCRA but had the termination denied by Ally
Financial.
Thompson argues Ally Financial did not allow him to terminate his
motor vehicle lease despite him submitting his deployment orders
that specifically stated he was authorized to be released "from any
and all current contracts, leases, payment plans and court
appearances."
"Even after eligible servicemembers requested SCRA benefits and
provided sufficient documentation to qualify for benefits,
Defendant denied benefits under the guise of needing additional
documentation," the Ally Financial class action lawsuit says.
In addition to allegedly violating the SCRA, Thompson claims Ally
Financial is guilty of breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of statutory, compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages for himself and all class
members.
A group of current and former active duty military service members
filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank in March over
claims the bank is violating the SCRA by overcharging them on
interest rates and fees.
The Ally Financial servicemember class action lawsuit is Thompson,
et al. v. Ally Financial, Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00434, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. [GN]
AMERESCO INC: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled HUGO RAMIREZ, an individual on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERESCO, INC., a
Delaware corporation; BERNARD NICKELS INC., a New York corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CIVSB2406892, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on May 3,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-00949 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, 10 total causes of action, nine of which are
for various violations of the California Labor Code and one for
"Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions
Code.
Ameresco, Inc. is a provider of comprehensive renewable energy
services.[BN]
Defendant Ameresco, Inc. represented by:
Leigh A. White, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-1661
E-mail: lwhite@cdflaborlaw.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Certifies Class Action Over ESG Pension
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge reports that a district judge has granted
a pilot's request for a class-action lawsuit against American
Airlines for allegedly investing pension funds into environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) funds.
The case revolves around the allegation that American Airlines --
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas -- violated its fiduciary
obligation to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
"by investing millions of dollars of American Airlines employees'
retirement savings with investment managers and investment funds
that pursue political agendas" through ESG initiatives.
"By pursuing ESG goals, Defendants gave Plan assets to fund
managers, such as BlackRock, who allegedly ignored financial
returns as the exclusive purpose and lowered the value of Plan
participants' investments," the order states.
In addition to being disloyal to the employees, the plaintiff,
Bryan Spence, argues that American Airlines' investments were
"imprudent because it is well known that ESG funds are associated
with poor performance given the detrimental effects of such
activism on stock prices."
"To remedy these alleged ERISA violations, Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit individually and on behalf of a proposed class of Plan
participants and beneficiaries," the order says. "ERISA authorized
participants in a qualifying plan to bring an action on behalf of
other participants to enforce the statute's fiduciary obligations
and remedial provisions, as well as recover all losses to a plan
caused by a breach of a fiduciary duty."
Texas District Judge Reed O'Conner -- a George W. Bush appointee --
writes in his order that the case is eligible for class action
because of the similarities of ERISA violations.
"Even if the damages are diverse, finding in favor of Plaintiff on
his ERISA claims would also resolve the ERISA claims of this
class," he writes.
The remedy for damages would be the same for all plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit, he says.
'Underperforms Financially'
According to the complaint, ESG funds are usually more expensive
for pension enrollees than non-ESG funds.
They also "underperform financially," and instead of maximizing
"risk-adjusted financial returns" for enrollees, they "engage in
shareholder activism to achieve ESG policy agendas."
"Defendants have also selected and included as investment options
funds that are managed by investment companies that pursue ESG
policy agendas through proxy voting and shareholding activism," the
complaint says. "Many of these funds are not branded or marketed as
ESG funds; however, the actions of their investment advisors and
managers give rise to the same ERISA violations as those funds that
do market themselves as ESG funds."
The complaint states that Mr. Spence, an American Airlines pilot
and Lt. Col. in the U.S. Air Force, "has suffered specific
financial damages" as a result of American Airlines' "unlawful
conduct."
The pension plan itself "has suffered millions of dollars in losses
because of the Defendants' fiduciary breaches and the Plan remains
vulnerable to continuing harm."
The complaint defines ESG as an investment strategy "aimed at
influencing societal changes."
"Generally, three criteria are used to evaluate companies for ESG
investing," the complaint says.
'Aggressive Climate Goals'
Among the criteria are environmental commitments to reduce a
company's carbon footprint and a pledge to support Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agendas.
"American Airlines is fully committed to ESG strategy as a
company," the complaint says. "According to its annual ESG Report,
American Airlines views its ESG efforts as a 'key part of
American's success,' and 'an important part of American's long-term
strategy," the complaint says. "It sets DEI goals and strives to
achieve net zero emissions by 2050."
On its ESG webpage, American Airlines declares its commitment to
"aggressive climate goals."
American Airlines states on its DEI webpage that it strives for
diversity in hiring and that its employees "work to make American a
place where people of all generations, races, ethnicities, genders,
sexual orientations, gender identity, disabilities, religious
affiliations and backgrounds feel welcome and valued."
The Human Rights Campaign awarded American Airlines a "Best Places
to Work for LGBTQ Equality" in 2021, according to the webpage.
Sacrificing Safety for Ideology
Currently, the airline industry is under scrutiny for what critics
say is sacrificing safety and performance for DEI ideology.
The airline has faced several complications this year, including an
"anomaly" in the braking system on one of its aircraft to run past
the end of a runway, The Associated Press reported, and another
mechanical issue in one of its planes while in flight.
In January, one of its flights landed hard, putting five flight
attendants and one passenger in the hospital.
In January, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk criticized the airline
industry's emphasis on DEI initiatives in a post on X.
"Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI
hiring over your safety? That is actually happening," he said. [GN]
AMERICAN SENIOR SERVICES: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Senior
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Stephanie Brown, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Senior
Services, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-01295 (M.D. Fla., May 28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American Senior Services, Inc. (ASSI) --
http://www.truefreedomhomecare.com/-- is a service contract
company that offers the most viable and dependable alternative to
traditional home health care insurance s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
AMERICO HOSPITALITY: Mortland Sues Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Derek Mortland, individually, and on behalf of individuals
similarly situated v. AMERICO HOSPITALITY LLC, an Indiana limited
liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00131-GSL-APR (N.D. Ind., April
15, 2024), is brought pursuant to the enforcement provision of the
American with Disabilities Act of 1990 against the Defendant in
violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible
facilities.
The hotel owned and operated by the Defendant was originally built
by the Defendant or it predecessor commencing in 2011 and granted
permits for occupancy in 2011 and is non-compliant with the
remedial provisions of the ADA for newly designed and constructed
or altered facilities. Full compliance with the implementing
regulations of the ADA is required for this hotel unless it would
be structurally impracticable in which case compliance is required
to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual diagnosed with spinal paralysis and
permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility.
Hospitality LLC operates and owns a Holiday Inn Express Lafayette
located in Lafayette, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is are represented by:
Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFCIES OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.
4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
Toledo, OH 43615
Phone: (734) 240-0848 - Monroe, MI
Phone: (419) 241-9661 – Toledo, OH
Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
Email: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Class Cert Response Extended to April 25, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHO & RIG SACRAMENTO,
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order that:
1. The deadline for AmGUARD to respond to Echo & Rig's motion for
class certification shall be extended to April 25, 2025.
2. The deadline for Echo & Rig to file its reply in support of its
motion for class certification shall be extended to May 30,
2025.
3. The hearing on Echo & Rig's motion for class certification is
rescheduled to June 12, 2025, at 1:30 PM.
4. The parties agree that this joint objection and stipulation does
not waive any right to request further modifications of the case
management order or extensions of deadlines.
AmGUARD provides Commercial and Personal insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OB69co at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: rick@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
- and -
David A. Neiman, Esq.
ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
321 North Clark Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 458-1000
Facsimile: (312) 458-1004
E-mail: dneiman@rblaw.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Deborah L. Stein, Esq.
Daniel R. Adler, Esq.
Sean F. Howell, Esq.
333 South Grand Avenue
alGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: DStein@gibsondunn.com
DAdler@gibsondunn.com
SHowell@gibsondunn.com
AMN HEALTHCARE: Conahan Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Conahan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2024CUMC021354 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Venture, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on April 19, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03262-PA-PD.
In sum, Plaintiff alleges that AMN "installed a data collection
process on its website www.amnhealthcare.com (the 'Website') for
the purpose of de-anonymizing, tracking, and tracing the identity
and source of visitors to its site" which was provided by TikTok
and that the device was deployed when Plaintiff visited AMN's
website in January 2024. On that basis, the Complaint alleges a
single cause of action against AMN for violation of one of the
provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"),
California Penal Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Wynter L. Deagle, Esq.
Anne-Marie D. Dao, Esq.
Teresa R. Morin, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130-4092
Phone: 858.720.8900
Facsimile: 858.509.3691
Email: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com
adao@sheppardmullin.com
tmorin@sheppardmullin.com
APARTMENT INCOME: Coleman Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Killian Coleman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. APARTMENT INCOME REIT CORP. and
APARTMENT INCOME REIT, L.P., Case No. 2484-cv-01116 was removed
from the Superior Court Department for Suffolk County,
Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on May 28, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-11406.
The Plaintiff claims that Defendants: failed to provide their
former residents with itemized lists, sworn to under pains and
penalties of perjury, of damages for which deductions were made
from residents' security deposits; improperly withheld funds from
former residents' security deposits for apartment cleaning charges;
and failed to provide written evidence of the property damages for
which deductions were made from security deposits.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
Yousaf M. Jafri, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
yousaf.jafri@ogletree.com
APPLE INC: Cross Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Cross, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf
of those similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06411
(D.N.J., May 24, 2024), is brought against Defendant, under Section
2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Antitrust Act, for relief from Defendant's attempted and
actual monopolization of the market for the sale of Smartphones in
the United States from at least as early as March 21, 2020, through
the date by which the anticompetitive effects of its violations of
law shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present
(the "Class Period").
Apple has abused and continues to abuse its monopoly through the
overarching scheme revealed by the DOJ, with the purpose and the
effect of charging and receiving artificially high prices and fees
from consumers in the United States.
For many years, Apple has built a dominant iPhone platform and
ecosystem, driving the company's astronomical valuation. At the
same time, it has long understood that disruptive technologies and
innovative apps, products, and services threatened that dominance
by making users less reliant on the iPhone or making it easier to
switch to a non-Apple Smartphone. Rather than respond to
competitive threats by offering lower Smartphone prices to
consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet
competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and
restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements
that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation,
offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle
competitive alternatives. It has deployed this playbook across many
technologies, products, and services, including super apps, text
messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among many others.
Apple's anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the
Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries
affected by these restrictions, including financial services,
fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more.
Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped,
it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other
markets and parts of the economy.
Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer
preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it
spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the
self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers'
privacy and security interests. Yet Apple selectively compromises
privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple's own
financial interest—such as degrading the security of text
messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to
access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting
billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default
search engine when more private options are available. In the end,
Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic
shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and
business interests.
The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the substantial
injuries she and members of the Class have suffered by reason of
Defendant's continuing violations of law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone directly from Apple.
Apple is one of the world's most valuable public companies with a
market capitalization over $2.5 trillion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
- and -
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
Melanie Porter, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
23 Forest St.
Medford, MA 02155
Phone: (781) 350-0000
Fax: (702) 983-8673
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
APPLE INC: Crucco Sues Over Anticompetitive Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Crucco, individually and in a representative capacity on
behalf of those similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-05281 (D.N.J., April 18, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
specifying internal documents that depict Apple's anticompetitive
actions.
It has gotten to the position through anticompetitive means and has
used anticompetitive actions to unlawfully sustain a monopoly of
the smartphone market. Apple's objective, as stated by Steve Jobs
in 2010, has been to "lock customers into Apple's ecosystem" and
"make Apple's ecosystem even more sticky by building technological
and other impediments that make it hard for users to switch to
alternative mobile devices. Rather than competing on the merits
through price and innovation, Apple sought to snare users on its
platform, locking them into iPhone usage and deterring alternative
products.
Apple deters competition by designing iPhones to block
cross-platform technologies between iPhones and Android smartphones
in order to solidify, establish, and/or increase Apple's smartphone
monopoly. In order to pursue its supracompetitive profits, Apple
has blocked features and innovation on its iPhone resulting in
Apple making the iPhone worse for consumers to prevent competition
from emerging, which has the effect of unlawfully inflating the
price of the iPhone. While Apple claims that it has prohibited the
design and installation of cross-platform technologies on its
smartphone platform for purposes of "security" and "privacy"
interests, this is mere pretext. Apple has engaged in course of
conduct designed to deter competition in the smartphone markets in
order to obtain monopoly rents and supracompetitive profits on the
iPhone.
Apple defends its monopoly with a series of restrictions that it
would not be able to dictate in a competitive market. When
customers buy milk or pay for other groceries, Apple charges a fee
for every "tap-to-pay" transaction, imposing its own expensive
interchange fee on financial institutions. When an iPhone user
conducts an internet search, Google shares some of the advertising
revenue generated by the search with Apple. Consumers like
Plaintiff, who purchased iPhones at supracompetitive prices and
have been deprived of innovation in a competitive smartphone
market, suffered injury from Apple's anticompetitive practices.
The Plaintiffs and the putative Classes have overpaid or otherwise
suffered economic losses due to Apple's monopolization of these
markets and therefore sue for damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief Plaintiff thus undertakes to represent a Class of
individuals who bought iPhones directly from Apple. Plaintiff
demands a trial by jury and treble damages, injunctive relief, and
other appropriate relief based on Apple's illegal monopolization,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone 11 directly from Defendant
Apple.
Apple Inc. is the biggest smartphone maker in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com
bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
6057 Metropolitan Plz
Los Angeles CA 90036
Phone: (314) 662-2836
Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
APPLE INC: Expert Disclosures Deadline in Hazlitt Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hazlitt, et al., v. Apple
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421 (S.D. Ill., Filed May 6, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order that Apple's
expert disclosures deadline is stayed until the Court resolves
Apple's pending motion.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property
Damage Product Liability.
Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.
APPLE INC: Faces Deluca Suit Over Smartphone Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------
ANA DELUCA, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf
of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06381 (D.N.J., May 23, 2024) alleges violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Apple's Smartphone
business model is one that invites as many participants as
possible, including iPhone users and third-party developers, to
join its platform while using contractual terms to force these
participants to pay substantial fees. At the same time, Apple
restricts its platform participants' ability to negotiate or
compete down its fees through alternative app stores, in-app
payment processors, and more.
To protect that model, Apple allegedly reduces competition in the
markets for Performance Smartphones and Smartphones generally. It
does this by delaying, degrading, or outright blocking technologies
that would increase competition in the Smartphone markets by
decreasing barriers to switching to another Smartphone, among other
things. The suppressed technologies would provide a high-quality
user experience on any Smartphone, which would, in turn, require
Smartphones to compete on their merits.
Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual
restrictions that it selectively enforces through its control of
app distribution and its "app review" process, as well as by
denying access to key points of connection between apps and the
iPhone's operating system (called Application Programming
Interfaces or "APIs"). Apple can enforce these restrictions as an
intermediary between product creators such as developers on the one
hand and users on the other, says the suit.
As a result of its alleged anticompetitive conduct, Apple sells
iPhone brand Smartphones at supracompetitive monopoly prices to
consumers.
APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital
content, cloud and advertising services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr.
Vincent Briganti
Raymond P. Girnys
Peter A. Barile III
Peter Demato
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
- and -
Robert J. Bonsignore
Melanie Porter
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
23 Forest St.
Medford, MA 02155
Tel: (781) 350-0000
Fax: (702) 983-8673
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
APPLE INC: Kouyate et al. Sue Over Monopoly in Smartphone Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOUSSA KOUYATE, DAVID FREIFELD, JARELL BROWN, AND MICHELE KIELBASA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03135-TSH
(N.D. Cal., May 23, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws in connection with Defendant's
anticompetitive behavior in the smartphone market.
Allegedly, Apple took advantage of developers and content creators
who created apps that enhanced the value of the iPhone. Apple
repeatedly stifled innovation, through a host of shifting
contractual restrictions, by denying key points of connection, and
by degrading or blocking competitive technologies that might
undercut Apple's monopolistic profits and position atop the market.
Moreover, Apple's intent to monopolize the smartphone market and
its actions to exclude competition is exemplified by at least five
products and services it has targeted: super apps, cloud gaming
apps, messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple, Inc. is an American
multinational corporation and technology company that designs,
develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and
online services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alison E. Chase, Esq.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496,
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
APPLE INC: Oraheta Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Yaneth Cornejo Oraheta, individually and in a
representative capacity on behalf of those similarly situated v.
APPLE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06397 (D.N.J., May 24, 2024), is
brought against Defendant, under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act of 1890 and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, for
relief from Defendant's attempted and actual monopolization of the
market for the sale of Smartphones in the United States from at
least as early as March 21, 2020, through the date by which the
anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall have ceased,
but in any case no earlier than the present (the "Class Period").
Apple has abused and continues to abuse its monopoly through the
overarching scheme revealed by the DOJ, with the purpose and the
effect of charging and receiving artificially high prices and fees
from consumers in the United States.
For many years, Apple has built a dominant iPhone platform and
ecosystem, driving the company's astronomical valuation. At the
same time, it has long understood that disruptive technologies and
innovative apps, products, and services threatened that dominance
by making users less reliant on the iPhone or making it easier to
switch to a non-Apple Smartphone. Rather than respond to
competitive threats by offering lower Smartphone prices to
consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet
competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and
restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements
that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation,
offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle
competitive alternatives. It has deployed this playbook across many
technologies, products, and services, including super apps, text
messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among many others.
Apple's anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the
Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries
affected by these restrictions, including financial services,
fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more.
Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped,
it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other
markets and parts of the economy.
Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer
preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it
spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the
self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers'
privacy and security interests. Yet Apple selectively compromises
privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple's own
financial interest—such as degrading the security of text
messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to
access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting
billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default
search engine when more private options are available. In the end,
Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic
shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and
business interests.
The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the substantial
injuries he and members of the Class have suffered by reason of
Defendant's continuing violations of law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone directly from Apple.
Apple is one of the world's most valuable public companies with a
market capitalization over $2.5 trillion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
- and -
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
Melanie Porter, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
23 Forest St.
Medford, MA 02155
Phone: (781) 350-0000
Fax: (702) 983-8673
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over iPhone 7 Audio Chip Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Diaz of The New York Times reports that some Apple customers
who owned an iPhone 7 or 7 Plus and experienced audio issues may be
entitled to up to $349 as part of a proposed $35 million settlement
on a class-action lawsuit.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, claimed that the iPhone 7 and
the iPhone 7 Plus had audio issues related to the "audio IC" chip
in those devices, according to a settlement administrator's
website. The settlement received preliminary approval last year.
Apple has denied the allegations of audio problems and has denied
any wrongdoing, according to the website. The company did not
immediately respond on Thursday to a request for comment about the
settlement.
In a joint statement, Andrea Gold and Greg Coleman, lawyers for the
six original plaintiffs in the case, said they were "proud of the
nationwide class action settlement that is pending final approval
before the court."
Customers included in the settlement may have received an email or
postcard notification about the lawsuit.
Who is eligible for a payment?
Customers residing in the United States who owned an iPhone 7 or
iPhone 7 Plus between Sept. 16, 2016, and Jan. 3, 2023, and who
reported covered audio issues to Apple, or paid Apple for repairs
or replacements for covered issues, may be eligible for a portion
of the settlement.
The deadline is June 3.
Customers who want to be included in the settlement must submit a
form online or have the envelope postmarked by June 3, 2024,
according to the administrator. After filing, customers can select
how they would like to be paid, whether by electronic check or
physical check.
To apply for a claim, people can visit the settlement
administrator's website or download a form, complete and print it
out and mail it to the address provided on the form.
The form requires users to submit contact information, such as a
home and email address, and to select a payment option.
How much should customers expect?
A $35 million settlement fund will be established. Users who paid
Apple out of pocket for repairs or replacements for audio issues
for their iPhone 7 or 7 Plus could receive a payment of at least
$50 and up to $349. Customers who reported audio issues to the
company, but did not pay Apple for out of pocket repairs or
replacements, will receive payments of up to $125.
When will users get their money?
A judge will hold a final approval hearing, which is scheduled for
July 18, 2024, according to the administrator's site. People who
qualify would receive their payments electronically or by check.
The deadline to submit a claim, object or be excluded from the
settlement is June 3, 2024. [GN]
ARDEN CLAIMS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sauray Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN SAURAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARDEN CLAIMS SERVICE LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 609033/2024 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., May 24, 2024) is an
action arising from a cyberattack resulting in a data breach of
sensitive information in the possession and custody and control of
the Defendant.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach
resulted in the unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of
consumers' highly personal information, including names and Social
Security numbers ("personal identifying information" or "PII"). The
Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their PII.
As a result of the Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach,
the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered and will
continue to suffer damages, including monetary losses, lost time,
anxiety, and emotional distress, says the suit.
ARDEN CLAIMS SERVICE LLC is a full-service class action litigation
claims administration firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gounaris Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE GOUNARIS, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00727 (E.D. Mo., May 23, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant's negligence in safeguarding the
Plaintiff and the Class Personally Identifiable Information and
Protected Health Information.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on May 9, 2024,
Ascension's network systems were unauthorizedly accessed in a
ransomware attack, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of the
PII and PHI of Plaintiff and the Class Members. The Data Breach
directly resulted from Ascension's failure to implement adequate
and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to
protect its patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack. Due to Defendant's negligent conduct,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk, as the
Private Information they entrusted to Defendant has been accessed
and acquired by data thieves, says the suit.
ASCENSION HEALTH operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization provides physician practice management, venture
capital investing, biomedical engineering, clinical care, risk
management, palliative care, spiritual, and information services.
Ascension Health serves communities in the State of Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
David W. Lawler, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
dlawler@tzlegal.com
ASCENSION SAINT THOMAS: Patient Sues Over Breach of Medical Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McCullough of WKRN.com reports that a patient of Ascension
Saint Thomas Hospital has filed a class action lawsuit against the
hospital group over what she says is the unauthorized breach of
medical information stemming from a cyberattack.
In the complaint, the patient says the hospital "failed to
undertake adequate measures to safeguard the private information"
of its patients, "including failing to implement industry standards
for data security and failing to properly train employees on
cybersecurity protocols," which resulted in the May 8 breach of
patient data.
According to the hospital, officials noticed "unusual activity on
select technology network systems" and determined it to be a
"cybersecurity event." Later on, officials identified the incident
as a "ransomware attack," according to the lawsuit.
Despite promising to notify patients if their personal identifying
information was affected in the attack, the complaint says the
hospital group has "obfuscated key details" of the data breach,
including "failing to disclose to affected patients whether or not
their information was unauthorizedly disclosed." The suit also
claims the hospital has not revealed the identity of the ransomware
criminal, if they paid the ransom, if the cybercriminals have said
the private information was taken and "other pertinent details
necessary for affected patients to take appropriate measures to
protect themselves from the Data Breach."
The patient believes their personal identifying information --
including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, medical
history, health insurance information and payment information --
was illegally obtained in the cyber attack, citing media reports
stating as such in the complaint.
Further, the lawsuit claims Ascension failed to take "necessary
precautions required to safeguard and protect" their information,
putting their patients at risk of identity theft, financial fraud
and "other harms."
They claim Ascension failed to meet minimum cybersecurity standards
recommended by the Center for Internet's Security's Critical
Security Controls, which contributed to the hospital group's
vulnerability in the ransomware attack.
They are asking the Court to certify the class action lawsuit,
allowing many others to join in the lawsuit, as well as to award
restitution and damages to each member of the certified class. They
also seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief as necessary
to protect their interests. [GN]
ASR GROUP: Kedzie Boulevard Cafe Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEDZIE BOULEVARD CAFE, INC. d/b/a/ SCOFFLAW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS,
INC.; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY;
COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case
No. 0:24-cv-01949 (D. Minn., May 23, 2024) alleges violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and seeks treble damages, injunctive
relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal antitrust laws and
demands a trial by jury on all matters so triable.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated, among other things,
Section 1 of Sherman Act, by conspiring to artificially inflate the
price of granulated sugar from at least January 1, 2019 to the
present. In furtherance of this conspiracy, among other things, the
Defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanged competitively
sensitive information about prices, capacity, sales volume, and
demand. As a result of Defendants' combination and conspiracy,
Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and institutional
indirect purchasers of granulated sugar suffered overcharges, says
the Plaintiff.
ASR Group is a privately held Florida corporation based in West
Palm Beach, FL. The company refines and markets cane sugar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
Brian W. Nelson, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
bwnelson@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemans, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL ZEMANS, LLC
2023 W. Berteau Ave.
Chicago, IL 60618
Telephone: (773) 706-7767
E-mail: dzemans@zemans-law.com
ASR GROUP: Sugar Bake Shop Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGAR BAKE SHOP, INC. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS &
REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY, CARGILL, INC., COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and
RICHARD WISTISEN, Case No. 0:24-cv-01992 (D. Minn., May 28, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of conspiring to fix prices for Granulated
Sugar in the United States.
The Defendants allegedly entered into an unlawful agreement to
artificially inflate the prices of Granulated Sugar in the United
States. To implement the price-fixing scheme, the Defendants
allegedly exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public
information about Granulated Sugar prices, capacity, sales, volume,
supply, and demand. As a result of the alleged conspiracy,
commercial indirect purchasers of Granulated Sugar in the United
States and its territories, including Plaintiff and Class members,
paid supra-competitive prices for Granulated Sugar sold by
Defendants beginning January 1, 2019 up to the present. The
Plaintiff brings claims for Defendants' alleged violations of the
Sherman Act, state antitrust statutes, and state consumer
protection statutes, as well as for unjust enrichment.
ASR Group International, Inc. is a global producer and seller of
Granulated Sugar based in West Palm Beach, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON · KING LLP
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651)312-6518
E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
Two City Place Drive
Second Floor
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
Cody McCracken, Esq.
Lissa Morgans, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com
cmccracken@cuneolaw.com
lmorgans@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Armand Derfner, Esq.
Jonathan S. Altman, Esq.
DERFNER & ALTMAN
575 King St, Suite B
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 723-9804
Facsimile: (843) 723-7446
E-mail: aderfner@derfneraltman.com
jaltman@derfneraltman.com
AT&T INC: Berendt Sues Over Failure to Adequately Secure PII
------------------------------------------------------------
William Berendt, Xavier King, Hugo Orellana, Kimberly Townsend, and
Therese Kyker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04310 (N.D. Ill., May 24,
2024), is brought against the Defendant's negligent, reckless,
intentional, and/or unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy
its contractual, statutory, and common law obligations, Plaintiffs'
and Class members' Personally Identifiable Information ("PII").
Corporations that collect consumers' sensitive information,
including their names, phone numbers, addresses, email addresses,
dates of birth, financial account numbers, Social Security numbers
and/or passport numbers ("PII"), have a duty to the consumers to
protect their valuable, sensitive information.
Despite this knowledge, Defendant failed to properly protect
customers by investing in adequate data security, thereby allowing
hackers to exfiltrate the highly sensitive PII that customers
entrusted to Defendant. In approximately mid-March 2024, Defendant
became aware of a catastrophic, widespread data breach in which the
data of at least 73 million current and former customers was
breached and exfiltrated (the "Data Breach"). Most alarming,
reports indicate that the data at issue may have originated from a
2021 data breach.
On March 30, 2024, Defendant posted a notice to its website
announcing that the sensitive information of more than 73 million
current and former AT&T customers had been "released on the dark
web approximately two weeks ago." Specifically, "the data set
appears to be from 2019 or earlier, impacting approximately 7.6
million current AT&T account holders and 65.4 million former
account holders.
The Defendant's failure to promptly notify Plaintiffs and Class
members that their PII was implicated due to Defendant's security
failures virtually ensured that the unauthorized third parties who
exploited Defendant's security vulnerabilities could monetize,
misuse, and/or disseminate that PII before Plaintiffs and Class
members could take affirmative steps to protect their sensitive
information. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members will suffer
indefinitely from the substantial and concrete risk that their
identities will be (or already have been) stolen and
misappropriated even beyond the Data Breach itself, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result of the Defendant's
conduct.
The Defendant is one of the nation's largest telecommunications
providers, selling cellular services and internet to both
businesses and individual customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
Email: beth@feganscott.com
megan@feganscott.com
AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sutherlin Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY SUTHERLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00740 (E.D. Mo., May 27, 2024) is an action against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers.
The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable
information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves, says the suit.
AT&T INC. operates as a communications holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides local
and long-distance phone, wireless and data communications, Internet
access and messaging, IP-based and satellite television,
telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and
publishing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
Telephone: (314) 541-0317
Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
casey@consumerprotectionlegal.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Sets July 18 Settlement Final Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
DERIVATIVE ACTION
Bushansky & Houlihan v. Kawas, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-497 TSZ
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF ATHIRA PHARMA, INC.
("ATHIRA" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF MARCH 15, 2024.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ACTION IS A DERIVATIVE ACTION BROUGHT BY
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR
MONETARY PAYMENT. IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OR THE FEE AND EXPENSE AMOUNT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE,
YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE ANY ACTION.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the above-captioned
consolidated stockholder derivative action, as well as stockholders
who made litigation demands upon Athira
(collectively, the "Derivative Actions"), have entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement and Release Agreement, dated as of March
15, 2024 (the "Stipulation") providing the terms and conditions of
the proposed Settlement of the Derivative Actions (the
"Settlement"). All capitalized terms herein have the same meaning
as defined in the Stipulation or in the related Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Derivative Actions, Settlement Hearing, and Right To
Appear ("Long Form Notice") attached as Exhibit C to the
Stipulation. The Stipulation and Long Form Notice describe in
greater detail the Derivative Actions, the Settlement, and the
rights of Current Athira Stockholders, and are available on
Athira’s Investor-Relations webpage at
https://investors.athira.com/ and have been filed with the
Court.
THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS SEPARATE FROM THE
PENDING SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, FOR WHICH SEPARATE
NOTICES WILL BE PUBLISHED AND MAILED. YOUR RIGHTS AS A POTENTIAL
MEMBER OF THE CLASS OF PURCHASERS OF ATHIRA’S PUBLICLY TRADED
COMMON STOCK FROM SEPTEMBER 17, 2020, THROUGH JUNE 17, 2021, IN
THAT SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, ARE NOT IMPACTED BY THIS
SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS.
You have the right to participate in a Final Approval Hearing
scheduled to be held on Thursday, July 18, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., in
Courtroom 15206 on the 15th Floor of the United States Courthouse
located at 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington, 98101. At the
Final Approval Hearing, the Court will determine: (i) whether the
Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and should be approved by the Court; and (ii) whether a
final judgment should be entered that is similar to Exhibit D to
the Stipulation, dismissing with prejudice the Derivative Actions.
The Settlement, reached with the substantial assistance and
oversight of an experienced mediator, addresses allegations that
certain current and former directors and officers of Athira
breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal securities
laws. As part of the proposed Settlement, the Athira Board will
implement the agreed-upon Governance Reforms specifically set forth
in Exhibits 1-4 attached to the Stipulation.
After reaching agreement on the principal terms of the Settlement
and executing a term sheet, Plaintiff Bushansky, Plaintiff
Houlihan, and Mr. Ali Soofi, on the one hand, and Athira, on the
other hand, with the assistance of the mediator, commenced
negotiations in good faith regarding attorney fees and, with the
assistance of the Mediator, ultimately reached an agreement on the
Fee and Expense Amount, as well as the Service Awards amount,
subject to ¶ V (D) of the Stipulation and approval by
the Court. The motion for attorney fees, costs, and service awards
is available for viewing on Athira’s Investor-Relations webpage
at https://investors.athira.com/. The Court has not ruled on the
motion for attorney fees, costs, and service awards.
Any Current Athira Stockholder who has held Athira common stock
from the date of the execution of the Stipulation on March 15,
2024, through the date of the Final Approval Hearing, has the right
to appear in person or virtually via Zoom and to be heard at the
Final Approval Hearing. Any written objections to the Settlement,
the Judgment, and/or the Fee and Expense Amount or the Service
Awards, shall be mailed to Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel, David C.
Katz of Weiss Law, at the address listed below, and postmarked by
June 15, 2024. Objections may also be presented during the course
of the Final Approval Hearing regardless of whether any written
objection was previously submitted. Current Athira Stockholders who
submit a written objection may, but are not required to, appear at
the Final Approval Hearing. Current Athira Stockholders who have no
objection to the
Settlement do not need to appear at the Final Approval Hearing or
take any other action.
Inquiries may be made to Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel: David C.
Katz, Weiss Law, 305 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10007,
telephone: (212) 682-3025, email dkatz@weisslawllp.com; Patrick
Slyne, Slyne Law LLC, 800 Westchester Avenue, N641, Rye
Brook, NY 10573, telephone: (914) 279-7000, email:
Patrick.Slyne@slynelaw.com.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, OR THE CLERK’S
OFFICE REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE.
DATED: May 16, 2024
BAKER TILLY US: Takahashi Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yuichi Takahashi, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated and other aggrieved employees v. BAKER
TILLY US, LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership; and DOES
1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01385465 was removed from
the Court from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 28, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 8:24-cv-01130.
The Complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class for:
failure to pay minimum wage; unpaid overtime; meal break
violations; rest break violations; failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses; failure to timely pay wages at termination;
failure to provide accurate wage statements; and unfair business
practices. The Complaint also alleges a representative action claim
for civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
- and -
Nancy Nguyen, Esq.
Matthew M. Arnold, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com
matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Ruozzi Sues Over Deceptive Credit Card Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SKYE RUOZZI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-03783
(E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2024) accuses the Defendant of deceptive conduct
arising from its failure to comply with the terms under its credit
card payment options.
The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's alleged failure
to abide by the terms under its credit card payment options. The
"Account Balance" option implies that Defendant will withdraw the
full amount owed on the credit card each month, avoiding interest
charges on purchases as part of the Card Agreement. The Plaintiff
and Class members selected "Account Balance" believing they were
choosing the option that would prevent balances that carried over
and incurred interest charges. Contrary to their expectations,
paying the full amount owed on the credit card each month will
still result in interest being charged and added on to the
following statement's balance. In total, between August 21, 2023
through October 20, 2023, the Plaintiff incurred interest charges
of $32.12, despite paying the entire balance owed each month, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in deceptive conduct
and is liable for damages for violations of the North Carolina
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the North Carolina
Debt Collection Act, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
Bank of America, N.A. is a banking institution headquartered in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C.
233 Broadway, Suite 2340
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: (917) 648-8784
E-mail: michael@pontonelaw.com
BARILLA AMERICA: Sinatro Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SINATRO, et al.,
v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460-DMR (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certifying
the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3):
"All residents of California who, within four years prior to
the
filing of this Complaint, purchased the Products, containing
the
Challenged Representation on the Products' front packaging, for
purposes other than resale."
-- appointing Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost as class
representatives and Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel;
and
-- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr. Cantor.
The parties shall immediately meet and confer regarding Barilla's
request to dismiss the nationwide class, and file a stipulation or
joint letter that does not exceed two pages setting forth their
position(s) on the request within 14 days of the date of this
Order.
Barilla’s sole argument against a finding that a class action
would be a superior method to litigate the proposed class
members’ claims is issues with "ascertainability."
The court finds that the superiority requirement is satisfied here,
where "(1) the amounts that each proposed class member can recover
are not significant and are small relative to the high costs of
individual litigation; (2) judicial economy would be promoted and
the litigation of the claims would be made more efficient and
practical; and (3) the prosecution of individual claims could
establish inconsistent standards of conduct for defendant."
The Plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost filed this
putative class action against the Barilla alleging false,
misleading, and deceptive marketing practices with respect to the
labeling of Barilla-brand pastas. P
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on June 11, 2022.
They assert the following claims for relief in the FAC: violation
of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business &
Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; violation of the False
Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code section
17500 et seq.; violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; breach of
warranty; and unjust enrichment/restitution.
In October 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part
Barilla's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim
for injunctive relief with leave to amend.
Barilla offers pasta, sauces, and bakery products. Barilla America
NY serves customers worldwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YIixuy at no extra
charge.[CC]
BARTLETT DAIRY: Miley Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Miley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BARTLETT DAIRY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02813-JAM
(E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2024), is brought arising out of Defendant's
failures to implement reasonable and industry standard data
security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately
destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach")
that, upon information and belief, contained personally
identifiable information ("PII") of Plaintiff and other individuals
("the Class"). The Data Breach occurred on or around June 21, 2023,
and Defendant began sending notice letters to Class members on
March 26, 2024.
The PII compromised in the Data Breach included personal
identifiable information of individuals whose PII was maintained by
Defendant, including Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, a wide
variety of PII was implicated in the breach, including potentially:
names, Social Security numbers, and State ID numbers. The Data
Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' PII with which it was hired to
protect.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII; failing to take standard and
reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class Members with prompt and full
notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was required to provide Defendant with his PII,
including his name, Social Security number, and other sensitive
information.
Bartlett Dairy is a dairy distributer with its primary focus of
producing and delivering milk in New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Sukert, NY Bar No. 5690532
Jeff Ostrow (pro hac vice forthcoming)
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
BASF CORP: Film-Forming Foam Contains PFAS, City of Camden Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF CAMDEN; CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY; CITY OF BENWOOD;
CITY OF BROCKTON; CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; CITY OF FREEPORT; CITY OF
SIOUX FALLS; CITY OF SOUTH SHORE; CORAOPOLIS WATER & SEWER
AUTHORITY; DALTON FARMS WATER SYSTEM; MARTINSBURG MUNICIPAL
AUTHORITY; TOWNSHIP OF VERONA; and VILLAGE OF BRIDGEPORT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BASF CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-03174-RMG (D.S.C., May 23, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants' designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold
fluorosurfactants containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a
family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid
and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and its chemical precursors for
use in many products, including aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).
According to the complaint, the Defendant designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold the fluorosurfactants contained in
the AFFF products, thus creating or participating in creating a
public nuisance that is harmful to health and obstructs the use of
the drinking water supplies of the proposed Class Representatives
and proposed Class Members.
BASF Corporation operates as a chemical company. The Company offers
chemicals, plastics, performance, and crop protection products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. London
DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
Facsimile: (212)566-7501
Email: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
Napoli Shkolnik, Esq.
1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (833) 271-4502
Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
Email: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Email: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Joseph Rice, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: 843-216-9440
Email: jrice@motleyrice.com
BASIT MOTIWALA: Seeks Extension to File Reply to Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as De La Cruz, v. Motiwala et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10403-AT-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order granting an extension of 2 weeks to
respond to the Plaintiff's motion to certify conditional collective
action.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bsmb9v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
William X. Zou, Esq.
BILL ZOU & ASSOCIATES PLLC
136-20 38 Avenue, Suite 10D
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 661-9562
Facsimile: (718) 661-2211
BAVARIAN MANSION: Sanchez and Nunez Sue Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO NUNEZ SANCHEZ and ROSENDO NUNEZ, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs v. BAVARIAN
MANSION, LLC, d/b/a BAVARIAN MANOR COUNTRY INN & RESTAURANT, FIVE
FURLONGS TAVERN LLC, d/b/a FIVE FURLONGS TAVERN, and GARRETT DOYLE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00693-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024)
is a class action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, and the Internal Revenue Code to recover from
Defendants unpaid wages, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
Allegedly, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated overtime wages for all relevant weeks
where they worked over 40 hours. In addition, Defendants also
breached their contract with Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated as required by the Federal Insurance
Contribution Act. In retaining these sums for themselves,
Defendants were unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, says the suit.
Based in Purling/Round Top, NY, Bavarian Mansion, LLC operates a
hotel restaurant under the name Bavarian Manor Country Inn &
Restaurant, which offers food and hospitality services to tourists
and interstate travelers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
BETA BIONICS: Navarro Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Navarro, an individual on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. BETA BIONICS, INC., a
Massachusetts corporation; JOHNSON SERVICE GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2024-01392520-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on May
28, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01132.
The Complaint brings putative class claims for alleged: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor
Code; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages; Failure to Comply with Labor
Code; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code; Rest-Break Liability
Under Labor Code; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements under
Labor Code; Failure to Maintain Records Under Labor Code; Failure
to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination Under Labor Code; Violation of
Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses 2802;
and (12) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert R. Roginson, Esq.
Ryan H. Crosner, Esq.
Chloe S. Chang, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: robert.roginson@ogletree.com
ryan.crosner@ogletree.com
chloe.chang@ogletree.com
BIOGEN INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Information
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB) securities between
February 3, 2022 and February 13, 2024. Biogen is a global
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and delivers
therapies for people living with serious and complex diseases
worldwide.
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
Biogen Inc. (BIIB) Misled Investors Regarding its Financial
Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period defendants
failed to disclose that:
(i) Biogen had overstated its efforts to enhance its
transparency, corporate governance, and compliance controls and
procedures, as well as the efficacy of those controls and
procedures;
(ii) accordingly, Biogen maintained inadequate compliance
controls and procedures in connection with its business operations
in foreign countries;
(iii) Biogen and/or its employees were engaged in unlawful or
otherwise improper conduct in several foreign countries;
(iv) the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk
of governmental and/or regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action,
as well as significant legal, financial, and reputational harm;
(v) Biogen overstated the strength of its AD-related product
portfolio, including the Company's and Eisai's efforts and success
in launching and providing access to Leqembi;
(vi) Biogen also downplayed the negative impact that the Reata
Acquisition would have on its FY 2023 non-GAAP diluted EPS;
(vii) all the foregoing were likely to have a significant
negative impact on Biogen's 2023 results; and
(viii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As the
public digested the truth, Biogen's stock price fell.
The complaint further alleges that on February 14, 2024, Biogen
disclosed in an SEC filing that it had received a subpoena from the
DOJ "seeking information relating to [Biogen's] business operations
in several foreign countries" and that "[t]he Company is also
providing information relating to [its] business operations in
several foreign countries to the SEC." On this news, Biogen's stock
price fell $5.91 per share, or 2.61%, to close at $220.74 per share
on February 14, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Biogen Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
July 22, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
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]
BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Jones Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackstone Medical
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Jones, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blackstone Medical
Services, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00986 (M.D. Fla., May 28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Blackstone Medical Services --
https://www.blackstonemedicalservices.com/ -- is a privately held
medical company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Gujral Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANBIR GUJRAL and DANIELLE
EMERSON, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
Case No. 2:19-cv-20581-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting class certification and appointing
Nagel Rice, LLP as Class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
BMW markets and sells motor vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wf10Sg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
Jacqueline M. Weyand, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
550 Broad Street, Suite 810
Newark, NJ 07102
BNP PARIBAS: Parties Seek Extension to File Public Copies of Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kashef et al., v. BNP
Paribas SA et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein entered an order granting the
Parties' joint request for a two-week extension of time to file
public copies of documents previously filed provisionally under
seal in connection with the Parties' class certification and
summary judgment briefing, subject to narrowly tailored
redactions.
The Parties' current deadline was May 28, 2024. The Parties
respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for filing
public copies of the documents by two weeks to June 11, 2024.
There have been no prior requests for an extension of this deadline
and it accounts for the time-intensive nature of conferring on
redactions, re-processing hundreds of exhibits and other documents,
re-filing the exhibits and other documents on the public docket, as
well as the holiday weekend.
BNP is a multinational universal bank and financial services
holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ktNN8M at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kathryn Lee Boyd, Esq.
HECHT PARTNERS LLP
125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 502-9515
E-mail: lboyd@hechtpartners.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Karen Patton Seymour, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-3196
E-mail: seymourk@sullcrom.com
- and -
Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2000
E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com
BOMBARDIER INC: Judge Certifies Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that a Quebec judge is authorizing a class
action from shareholders against Bombardier Inc. over claims that
the plane maker presented a false picture of its financial
situation in 2018, a turbulent year that saw its share price tank.
The lawsuit alleges that Bombardier, then-CEO Alain Bellemare and
then-chief financial officer John Di Bert failed to make timely
disclosures of key facts around the company's financial forecast.
Filed in Quebec Superior Court by shareholder Denis Gauthier in
2019, the class action concerns investors who bought company stock
between Aug. 2 and Nov. 8, 2018.
In the months leading up to Nov. 8, the Montreal-based company said
it was on track to achieve financial goals linked to its
restructuring.
But in its third-quarter results in November 2018, Bombardier
announced it would cut 5,000 jobs and sell off two units, and
reported free cash flow that sat "well below" expectations of
breaking even without falling back on proceeds from a recent
factory sale, according to one analyst at the time.
Stock at Bombardier tumbled 23 per cent on that November day in
2018.
Bombardier, which has since reinvented itself as a pure-play
business jet manufacturer, says it may appeal the authorization by
the court, which has not yet heard or ruled on the allegations.
[GN]
BOOZ ALLEN: Langley Class Suit Voluntary Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2024, that the court
granted plaintiffs' Langley class suit voluntary dismissal with
prejudice motion on April 23, 2024.
On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 ("Langley") naming the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief
Financial Officer as defendants purportedly on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's securities from May 19, 2016 through
June 15, 2017.
On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that were the subject of the investigation of the
Company by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), which has been
closed or settled. See Note 20, "Commitments and Contingencies," to
the consolidated financial statements contained within this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.
On September 22, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
the dismissed amended complaint or, in the alternative, for relief
from the court's prior dismissal order, and on October 16, 2023,
the court denied plaintiffs’ motion.
On November 15, 2023, plaintiffs filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit a notice of appeal from the
district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion.
On April 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for the voluntary
dismissal with prejudice of the appeal, and on April 23, 2024, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion.
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation, including its wholly owned
subsidiaries, provides management and technology consulting,
analytics, engineering, digital solutions, mission operations, and
cyber services to U.S. and international governments, major
corporations, and not-for-profit organizations.
BOSTON FOUNDRY: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Boston Foundry, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03436 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Boston Foundry for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website www.madeincookware.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.
Plaintiff Rileyhas made an attempt to complete a purchase on
Madeincookware.com. She tried to purchase a pot on April 25, 2024,
but was unable to complete the purchase independently because of
the many access barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Boston Foundry's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Boston Foundry, Inc. provides cookware products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Uses ICBC to Tax People for Healthcare Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Urquhart of Global News reports that the province of B.C.
is facing a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit for allegedly using
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to tax people for
health-care costs illegally.
Lawyer J. Scott Stanley represents the plaintiffs.
"If this lawsuit is successful, it could mean money for anybody
that has bought insurance from ICBC going back to 1973," he told
Global News.
The BC Supreme Court suit alleges that "for decades, ICBC has been
making payments to the provincial Medical Services Plan contrary to
law."
"Those payments have cost ratepayers hundreds of millions of
dollars and driven up insurance costs unnecessarily and
unlawfully," it claims.
Stanley said the province is taking money from insurance to pay for
something tax dollars are already covering.
"Whatever the government says, the answer already is (it has)
gotten that money from the federal government because all British
Columbians have already paid that when they've paid their federal
taxes," he said.
The case has been making its way through the courts since 2020.
Under then-Attorney General David Eby, the province tried to stop
the legal action using legislation.
Asked about the BC Supreme Court decision certifying the class
action, Eby defended ICBC's payments to the province.
"There was a technical problem with the laws around MSP and ICBC
that we addressed, and we'll make our arguments in court," he said
at an unrelated event on Monday.
No trial dates have been set.
Preliminary financial results show ICBC will make a net income of
$1.5 billion dollars this year.
Some of that money could one day end up back in the pockets of
British Columbians if the case is successful. [GN]
BROWN-FORMAN CORP: Styles Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Products
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUNTE STYLES; and NADESHA GRANT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROWN-FORMAN
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04043 (S.D.N.Y., May 37,
2024) is an action against the Defendant for selling a mislabeled
Jack Daniels Country Cocktail Lynchburg Lemonade.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite the labeling
and packaging, which conveys the presence of whiskey, the Lynchburg
Lemonade Country Cocktail does not contain whiskey, or if it does,
not more than a de minimis or negligible amount.
As a result of the false and misleading representations,
comparisons, and omissions identified here, the Product is sold at
a premium price, at or around $3.39 for 23.5 fl oz, excluding tax
and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and/or higher than it would be sold for absent
the misleading representations, comparisons, and omissions, says
the suit.
BROWN-FORMAN CORPORATION manufactures, bottles, imports, exports,
and markets a wide variety of alcoholic beverage brands. The
Company's products include branded whiskey, vodka, wines, tequila,
bourbon, and gin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
James Chung
CHUNG LAW P.C.
43-22 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
Email: jchung_77@msn.com
BRUTLAG TRUCKE: Tjaden Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brutlag, Trucke &
Doherty, P.A., et al. The case is styled as James Tjaden, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Brutlag, Trucke
& Doherty, P.A., Spring Lake Park Lumber Co., Perfekt, Inc., Case
No. 0:24-cv-01452-KMM-DJF (D. Minn., April 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty, P.A. -- https://www.brutlaw.com/ -- is a
business, finance, and real estate law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl E. Christensen, Esq.
Christopher Wilcox, Esq.
Ryan Supple, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC
305 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 375
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 473-1200
Fax: (612) 823-4777
Email: carl@christensensampsel.com
chris@clawoffice.com
ryan@christensensampsel.com
- and -
Carter B. Lyons, Esq.
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (612) 770-4221
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: carter@consumerjusticecenter.com
tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
BUBBZ & SUDDZ: Baez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronny Baez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BUBBZ & SUDDZ DETAILING, LLC, BUBBZ & SUDDZ PERFORMANCE AUTO
SPA, LLC, and MICHAEL PODELL, Case No. 2:24-cv-06431 (D.N.J., May
24, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL") to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated
co-workers.
The Plaintiff and the other non-exempt workers employed by the
Defendants to work at Bubbz & Suddz were not paid, and are owed,
unpaid overtime wages for many overtime hours that they worked for
Defendants. Specifically, the Defendants illegally failed to pay
Plaintiff and the other non-exempt workers employed by the
Defendants at Bubbz & Suddz overtime premiums for the many overtime
hours they worked for Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed the Defendants to work at Bubbz &
Suddz.
BUBBZ & SUDDZ DETAILING, LLC is a New Jersey Limited Liability
Company that operates Bubbz & Suddz.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 888-239-4410
Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
C & J CLARK RETAIL: Biddle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Mackensie Biddle, Jessa Naluz, Evangeline D. Gaston, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. C & J CLARK RETAIL,
INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01131 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2024), is
brought as a result of the Defendants violation of California Labor
Code due to unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid
rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely
paid; wages not timely paid during employment; non-compliant wage
statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed
business expenses; and Violation of California Business &
Professions Code (California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004).
The Plaintiffs and the other class members and aggrieved employees
worked over 8 hours in a day, 40 hours in a week, and/or over 6
consecutive days in a week during their employment with Defendants
as a result of their schedules. and/or as a result of being
compelled to work off-the-clock, and/or as a result of not
receiving full and uninterrupted meal and/or rest breaks.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other
class members and aggrieved employees were entitled to receive
certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not
receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours
worked, due to not being paid at the regular rate of pay during pay
periods when overtime was required to be paid at the regular rate
rather than at the base rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
The Defendants are employers whose employees are engaged throughout
the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
Joanna Ghosh, Esq.
Helene Mayer, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
Email: arby@calljustice.com
joanna@calljustice.com
helene@calljustice.com
- and -
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Vadang J. Patel, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
vedang@tomorrowlaw.com
CAESARS BALTIMORE: Faces Trento Wage and Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TRENTO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAESARS BALTIMORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC,
d/b/a HORSESHOE BALTIMORE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01483-SAG
(D. Md., May 21, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.
During his employment, Plaintiff Trento has worked as a table games
dealer, which is a tipped, hourly, non-exempt position. However,
the Defendant employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated
tipped employees by paying a sub-minimum direct cash wage but
failed to properly notify them of the tip credit requirements of
the FLSA. The Defendant likewise violated Maryland law by failing
to provide its employees with the requisite tip credit notice, says
the suit.
Caesars Baltimore Management Company LLC operates a casino property
located in Baltimore, MD. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Ste. 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770-1417
Telephone: (240) 553-1209
Facsimile: (240) 553-1748
E-mail: VNannis@JGLLAW.COM
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Cambium Networks Corporation
(NASDAQ:CMBM) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/cambium-networks-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=81566&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Cambium Networks Corporation that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between May 8, 2023 and January 18, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:
(1) there was a buildup of inventory in the Company's
distribution channels;
(2) the Company and its distributors were reasonably likely
to offer aggressive discounts to reduce the high channel
inventories;
(3) the Company's revenue would decline sequentially until
the excess channel inventory was sold through;
(4) Cambium was likely to incur significant charges to
writedown excess and obsolete inventory;
(5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's fiscal 2023
revenue and earnings would be adversely affected; and
(6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Cambium Networks stock
during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares
- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/cambium-networks-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=81566&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Boghossian Sues Over Misrepresentations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Der Boghossian, Andria L. Connell, Erica Browning, Alisha
JnoBaptiste, and Denise Tejada, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, LLC and STRATEGIC
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03007-VEC (S.D.N.Y., April 19,
2024), is brought to seek damages from the Defendants for
violations of New York Consolidated Laws, General Business Law
("GBL") and fraud, negligent misrepresentations, and restitution
for unjust enrichment.
The Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiffs and Class Members that
by pursuing a Capella PsyD degree, New York doctoral candidates
would be eligible to complete the required practicum and internship
hours in New York state in order to seek New York state licensure.
Unfortunately for Plaintiffs and Class Members, this was not the
case.
The PsyD program at Capella is not registered with the Education
Department as a PsyD program leading to licensure for practice in
New York. Similarly, it is not accredited or approved by the
American Psychological Association ("APA"), whose programs meet New
York state requirements. Consequently, as was well-known by
Defendants, Capella PsyD candidates are not authorized to practice
psychology as interns or trainees in New York state under the
traditional framework set forth in Section 7605 of the Education
Law.
Despite this limitation, Defendants marketed their PsyD program to
prospective students seeking licensure in New York state.
Defendants concealed from Plaintiffs and Class Members that they
would be enrolling in a program that would not afford them the
possibility of fulfilling their clinical training hours for
purposes of licensure in New York under the traditional framework
set forth by the Education Department, and that by selecting the
Capella PsyD program they would be choosing a doctoral program
characterized by limitations and much uncertainty as their ability
to become licensed in New York state.
The Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions were done in order
to induce Plaintiffs and Class Members to enroll in the Capella
PsyD program and to remain enrolled in the program--optimistically
progressing through three years of required coursework after which
candidates believed they would be afforded the opportunity to
qualify for placement with an approved clinical training internship
site in New York state for purposes of licensure. All the while,
Defendants knew but did not disclose to Plaintiffs and Class
Members that, by choosing to enroll in the Capella PsyD program,
they were selecting a doctoral program characterized by material
limitations and much uncertainty as their ability to become
licensed in New York state, and that the Exemption, on which
performance of the required clinical training in New York state
could be repealed at any time.
Had Plaintiffs and Class Members known about the material
limitations on their ability to become licensed in New York state
and that the Exemption, on which performance of the required
clinical training in New York was premised, could be repealed at
any time, they would not have enrolled at Capella, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs attended Capella University online to pursue a
Clinical PsyD degree.
Capella University, LLC is a private for-profit, online university
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Luis Munoz, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1717 IH-35, Suite 305
Round Rock, TX 78664
Phone: (512) 671-7277
Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
Email: LMunoz@carlsonattorneys.com
- and -
Steven M. Fink, Esq.
THE FINK LAW FIRM, P.C.
488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 280-6600
Facsimile: (516) 506-7695
Email: SFink@thefinklawfirmpc.com
CARE AND DEVELOPMENT: Warren Seeks to Certify Collection Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY WARREN AND ANTHONY
BADON on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v.
CARE AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., GILBERT CHARLES, AND LAVERNE
KING, Case No. 2:23-cv-07432-LMA-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order certifying the following Collective
Action Class under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and facilitate notice to all prospective class members:
"All persons who worked for Care and Development Center, Inc.
as a
Direct Service Worker from 2021 to the present who worked more
than 40 hours a week, but were not paid for all of the overtime
that they worked due to Defendants' policy of classifying them
as
independent contractors or "1099 employees" and not paying
overtime on all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per any
given
7-day work period."
The Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the class members they
seek
to represent, no individualized defenses exist which would preclude
certification, and certification will undoubtedly serve the
interests of the FLSA and judicial economy.
Care provides services and programs for individuals and families
with developmental disabilities.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZmBoJp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON+JACKSON
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 599-5953
Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
mjackson@jackson-law.net
CARTER'S RETAIL: Fulli Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Isabella Fulli, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CARTER'S
RETAIL, INC., a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case
No. S-CV-0052518 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Placer, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 24,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01486-TLN-DB.
The Complaint asserts eight causes of action for: Failure to Pay
Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide
Required Rest Periods; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses;
Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Final Wages Not Timely
Paid; Violation of California Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jon Meer, Esq.
Leo Li, Esq.
Romtin Parvaresh, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
lli@seyfarth.com
rparvaresh@seyfarth.com
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Baker Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cassandra Baker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC., REMI
BARBIER and ERIC J. SCHOEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00977 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on May
28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00590-RP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.
Cassava Sciences -- http://www.cassavasciences.com/-- is an
American pharmaceutical company based in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Louis Carey Ludwig, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
The Defendant is represented by:
Jayvan Errol Mitchell, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Phone: (860) 885-9816
- and -
Michael Scott Campbell, Esq.
Monica K. Loseman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1801 California St., Ste 4200
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 298-5723
CENCORA INC: Faces Wolford Suit Over Allleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
KEITH WOLFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-02256 (E.D. Pa., May 28, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
failing to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
members' private information.
On or about February 27, 2024, Defendant Cencora filed official
notice with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of a
hacking incident involving sensitive patient data. Cencora only
sent out data breach letters to the affected individuals, including
Plaintiff and Class members, on or about May 17, 2024.
The Defendants have not offered any assurance that all personal
data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that
they have adequately enhanced their data security practices
sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future.
The Plaintiff's and Class members' identities are allegedly now at
risk due to Defendants' negligent conduct. The Plaintiff now brings
claims for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
Cencora, Inc. is an international pharmaceutical solutions
organization headquartered in Conshohocken, 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
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Stoneburner Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY STONEBURNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case
No. (E.D. Pa., May 26, 2024) sues the Defendants for their failure
to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and
personal health information collected from its customers, their
patients, and/or other persons affiliated with Defendants.
On Feb. 27, 2024, Cencora filed a Form 8-K with the Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing that it has been impacted by a
data breach that resulted in the theft of sensitive information.
On May 17, 2024, Cencora sent, and Plaintiff received, a letter
notifying that her Personal Information was exposed in the Data
Breach. The letter indicates that her impacted information includes
names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnosis information, and
medication or prescription information, and that Cencora learned of
the breach on February 21, 2024. However, it has provided little
additional information about the duration or timeline of the
breach; no confirmation about the number of individuals impacted;
no confirmation about the full universe of the information
impacted; and no details about the steps being taken to address and
rectify the harms caused by the breach.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and class members
have been exposed to a present and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and class members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts and medical records
to guard against identity theft. Further, the Plaintiff and class
members will incur out-of-pocket costs to purchase credit
monitoring and identity theft protection and insurance services,
credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to
deter and detect identity theft.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other class
members, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of confidence, and for declaratory and injunctive relief.
To remedy these violations of law, Plaintiff and class members seek
actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, and injunctive and
declaratory relief (including significant improvements to the
Defendants' data security protocols and employee training
practices), reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
incurred in bringing this action, and all other remedies this Court
deems just and proper, says the suit.
Plaintiff Stoneburner provided Personal Information to, or
otherwise had Personal Information provided to, Cencora in
connection with receiving health-related services from Cencora.
The Defendant is a Conshohocken, Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical
solutions organization that specializes in pharmaceutical services,
including providing drug distribution and solutions for doctor's
offices, pharmacies, and animal healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
CENTENNIAL BANK: Autry Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA R. AUTRY individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENNIAL BANK, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00401-LPR (E.D. Ark., May 6, 2024) seeks to hold the
Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on
Plaintiff and tens of thousands of similarly situated persons due
to the Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which
caused the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals
(the "Data Breach") on April 6-7, 2023.
On information and belief, the Data Breach affected over 10,000
individuals. The data which the Defendant collected from the
Plaintiff and Class Members, and which was exfiltrated by
cybercriminals from the Defendant, were highly sensitive. The
exfiltrated data included personal identifying information and
personal health information. Then, after the Data Breach, Defendant
failed to provide timely notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class
Members -- thereby exacerbating their injuries, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seek remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief.
Centennial Bank provides personal and business banking
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, 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: anchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Ridpath & Karami Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAREK K. RIDPATH, D.D.S., P.C., MOE KARAMI, D.D.S., INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC., OPTUM, INC., and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:24-cv-00541-F (W.D. Okla., May 28, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of failing to implement adequate data
security measures, resulting in a data breach.
This action stems from a massive data breach that occurred on
Defendant Change Healthcare's network in February 2024, during
which cybercriminals illegally accessed and seized 6 terabytes of
crucial, confidential information, affecting millions of patients
and physicians, including Plaintiffs. The incident was later
identified as a ransomware attack, carried out by prominent
ransomware group, Blackcat. The Plaintiffs allege that the data
breach was a result of Defendants' negligence in securing and
safeguarding their information systems from a foreseeable
cyberattack.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, breach of contract,
and unjust enrichment.
Change Healthcare, Inc. is a health technology company
headquartered in Nashville, TN. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
Tara Tabatabaie, Esq.
SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC
1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (405) 509-6300
Facsimile: (800) 978-1345
E-mail: nsoltman@khiks.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Renewed Hope Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewed Hope Clinical Services, LLC, and Raincross Family
Counseling, Inc., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00552 (M.D. Tenn., May 3, 2024) is an
action to remedy the harms brought by Defendant's failure to
adequately and reasonably protect its computer systems and payment
networks, resulting in one of the largest cyberattacks impacting
the entire healthcare delivery system, healthcare providers and
patients throughout the United States.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and
a class of entities who have been harmed by Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard information within its computer
networks which was unlawfully accessed and/or exfiltrated by
unauthorized third parties during a data breach that exploited a
vulnerability in its software technology on February 21, 2024,
causing the nationwide payment disruptions in the processing of
medical claims.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint on behalf of themselves and all
others who were harmed by the data breach. They assert claims for
negligence, negligence per se, violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
declaratory judgment.
Change Healthcare Inc. operates clearinghouse for medical claims in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
Ethan S. Binder, Esq.
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-4478
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
CHARLOTTE METRO: Arbitration Amendment to Member Contracts Valid
----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a
credit union's unilateral update to add an arbitration provision
and class action waiver to its contract with one of its customers
was valid under North Carolina contract law.
The decision in Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union means that
an arbitration amendment added by the credit union -- now known as
Skyla Credit Union -- to member contracts was binding and
enforceable.
For financial institutions and other consumer-focused companies,
the court's divided decision provides clarity that unilateral
amendments to agreements can be made, provided the contract
specifically allows unilateral changes, and the subject of the
amendment is already a topic covered in the agreement.
Unilateral Change Is Not a Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing
In Canteen, Charlotte Metro Credit Union held checking accounts for
various parties and was sued in a class action for allegedly
charging improper overdraft fees.
The checking account agreement provided that the credit union could
unilaterally change the account agreement on notice to the account
holder. Charlotte Metro Credit Union decided to unilaterally amend
the contract to add an arbitration provision and class action
waiver and sent a notice stating that these provisions would become
effective unless the account holder opted out.
When Charlotte Metro was subsequently sued, it moved to compel
arbitration. The plaintiff claimed that the unilateral change to
the contract violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and that allowing unilateral amendments by one side would
render the contract illusory.
In a divided opinion, the North Carolina Supreme Court held for
Charlotte Metro.
"Change-of-terms provisions permit unilateral amendments to a
contract so long as the changes reasonably relate back to the
universe of terms discussed and anticipated in the original
contract," the court wrote in its majority opinion.
The court clarified that a unilateral amendment provision does not
grant a party "free rein" to change a contract however it wants.
Importantly, if a party attempted to unilaterally amend a contract
to deal with subjects not addressed in the original contract, that
would violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is
implied by law into every contract. Fortunately for Charlotte
Metro, its original account agreement contained a North Carolina
choice of law clause and provided that any lawsuit would be filed
in the county where the credit union was located. The court held
that those provisions meant that the forum for disputes was a term
already discussed in the original contract, so Charlotte Metro
could change the forum to arbitration by a unilateral amendment.
Two justices dissented.
Final Takeaway
This ruling from the Supreme Court is a significant victory for
financial institutions wanting to minimize the risk of potential
consumer class actions through arbitration and class action waiver
provisions. It provides a mechanism for modifying existing
contracts that include a unilateral amendment provision without the
necessity of having each consumer sign a new contract (which would
be virtually impossible for most large companies).
But caution is required given the scope of the court's ruling.
Financial institutions must still tread carefully in trying to roll
out new provisions on any topics not squarely addressed in the
existing agreements.[GN]
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Brawner Suit Transferred to D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandall Brawner, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Corporation of the President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Ensign Peak Advisors,
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01361 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah on April 18, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00277-RJS-DAO to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Ensign Peak Advisors is the investment manager for assets of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Flint, Esq.
JACOB FLINT LAW
2 Cityplace Dr. #200
ST. Louis, MO 63141
Phone: (314) 677-7613
Fax: (314) 549-8751
Email: jacob@jacobflintlaw.com
- and -
Michael D. Cox, Esq.
MURPHY, COX, FRANKS & LASATER
207 West 8th
Columbia, TN 38401
Phone: (931) 388-0832
The Defendant is represented by:
Milton S. McGee, III, Esq.
RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC
1906 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 320-3700
CINTAS CORPORATION: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Damian A. Castro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 3 and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00019252-CU-OE-CTL was
removed from the San Diego County Superior Court, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
May 28, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00932-WQH-MMP.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts failure to: pay all minimum
wages; pay all overtime wages; provide meal periods and pay missed
meal period premiums; provide rest periods and pay missed rest
period premiums; pay wages timely; furnish accurate wage
statements; pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation;
reimburse business expenses; and provide records.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
Yousaf M. Jafri, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
yousaf.jafri@ogletree.com
CITY OF HOPE: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carli Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE, a California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09935 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 19, 2024), is brought for their failure to properly
secure and safeguard Class Members' protected health information
and personally identifiable information stored within Defendants'
information network, including, without limitation, names, email
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers,
driver's license numbers, financial details such as bank account
and credit card information, health insurance information, medical
records and information about medical history and/or associated
conditions, and medical record numbers (these types of information,
inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as
"protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally
identifiable information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff seek to hold Defendants responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause The Plaintiff and over 800,000
other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on October 13,
2023, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately
protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII
belonging to both adults and children, which was being kept
unprotected (the "Data Breach").
While Defendants claim to have discovered the breach as early as
October 13, 2023, Defendants did not begin informing victims of the
Data Breach until April 2024. Indeed, The Plaintiff and Class
Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received
letters from Defendants informing them of it. The notice received
by The Plaintiff was dated April 2, 2024.
The Defendants acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PHI/PII and/or financial information. Therefore, at
all relevant times, Defendants knew, or should have known, that The
Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendants' services to store
and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PHI/PII.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from The
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII, Defendants assumed legal
and equitable duties to those individuals.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a
result, the PHI/PII of Representative.
The Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure
to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly
nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by
defrauding The Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. The
Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring
that their information is and remains safe, and they are entitled
to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
City of Hope is a medical treatment and research organization with
locations in California, Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Fax: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
- and -
Jason Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitros V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
Email: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
CLUB CAR WASH: Moser Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Club Car Wash
Operating, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Moser, Richard
Adams, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
v. Club Car Wash Operating, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04058-WJE (W.D.
Mo., April 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Club Car Wash Operating, LLC -- https://clubcarwash.com/ -- offer
several automatic car wash options for any customer.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas Burton Welmaker, Esq.
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75604
Phone: (512) 799-2048
Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com
- and -
Josef Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Phone: (713) 868-3388
Fax: (713) 683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
- and -
Anthony Meyer, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY MEYER LLC
103 Ripley Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: (573) 860-0342
Email: anthony@anthonymeyerlaw.com
COINBASE INC: Ontario Court Dismisses Cryptocurrency Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Rumeo of JDSupra reports that in Shirodkar v Coinbase Global,
Inc. et al., 2024 ONSC 1399 ("Coinbase"), the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (the "Court") stayed a proposed class action
against one of the four proposed defendants -- Coinbase Canada Inc.
-- on the basis that Ireland is a preferable forum while dismissing
it with respect to the other proposed defendants -- each of which
was a foreign Coinbase entity -- for want of jurisdiction.
Background
The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc. ("Coinbase Global"), Coinbase
Europe Limited, and Coinbase Inc. (collectively, the "Foreign
Coinbase Defendants"), and Coinbase Canada Inc. ("Coinbase Canada")
(together with the Foreign Coinbase Defendants, the "Coinbase
Defendants"), operate a digital platform that allows users to
purchase and sell digital assets, including cryptocurrency.
Mr. Shirodkar, one of the Coinbase platform users (the
"Plaintiff"), conducted purchase and sale transactions on the
platform between October 2017 and January 2021, during which time
he resided at various times in France and Ontario. At the time the
Plaintiff conducted these transactions, he had signed user
agreements with the Foreign Coinbase Defendants, but not with
Coinbase Canada.
The Plaintiff commenced a class proceeding, alleging that the
crypto assets being sold on the Coinbase platform are "securities"
as defined by s. 1(1) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5
(the "Act"). The Plaintiff asserted that these asserts were issued
without adherence to necessary disclosure requirements mandated by
securities legislation across Canada, posing a significant risk to
investors. After commencing the class proceeding, the Plaintiff
accessed the Coinbase platform and executed a user agreement with
Coinbase Canada, but did not perform any other transactions.
The Coinbase Defendants sought to dismiss the class action, on the
basis that the Court did not have jurisdiction over any of the
Coinbase Defendants, and also argued for a permanent stay based on
the principle of forum non conveniens (i.e., where an alternative
forum is more appropriate forum for the dispute to be
adjudicated).
In response, the Plaintiff argued that the Court could assert
jurisdiction on any or all of the following grounds:
-- Presence-Based Jurisdiction, which is established where a
defendant was carrying on business in the forum at the time the
action was commenced. This involves a factual inquiry into whether
the company has some direct or indirect presence in the state
asserting jurisdiction, accompanied by a degree of business
activity, which is sustained for a period of time;
-- Consent-Based Jurisdiction, which is established where a
defendant has consented, "whether by voluntary submission,
attornment by appearance and defence, or prior agreement to submit
disputes to the jurisdiction of the domestic court"; and/or
-- Assumed Jurisdiction, which provides that an Ontario court
will assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant where the
plaintiff establishes a "good arguable case" for doing so. The
court will apply the "real and substantial connection" test, which
requires a review of several factors that connect (or fail to
connect) the legal situation or the subject matter of the
litigation with the proposed forum.
The Court's Jurisdictional Analysis
The Ontario Court conducted a thorough jurisdictional analysis,
which considered whether the plaintiff's agreements with the
various Coinbase Defendants established a sufficient legal basis
for the Ontario Court to hear the case. Ultimately, the Court
concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the action against
the Foreign Coinbase Defendants as they could not satisfy the
threshold of conducting business in Ontario for jurisdictional
purposes. Moreover, while the Court held that Coinbase Canada had a
discernible business presence in Ontario, it ordered a permanent
stay against this Canadian entity on the basis of forum non
conveniens.
Presence-Based Jurisdiction
The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the
Foreign Coinbase Defendants were carrying on business in Ontario at
the time the action was commenced. The Court comprehensively
reviewed principles of presence-based jurisdiction, coming to
negative conclusions in each case, as follows:
-- Entities appoint agents for service in Ontario because they do
not have a physical presence in the jurisdiction, and such an
appointment does not amount to carrying on business in Ontario.
-- Registration with FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports
Analysis Centre of Canada) does not definitively constitute
presence in the jurisdiction.
-- Having a website that is available to be accessed by people
located in Ontario, is not enough to meet the threshold of
"presence" in the province in the absence of the performance of
"some substantial aspect of its own business undertaking" in
Ontario.
-- Registration as an extra-provincial corporation is an indicia
of carrying on business in Ontario, but it is not determinative.
Where the registration was intended to facilitate regulatory
filings that never occurred, this factor does not carry significant
weight.
-- The fact that the entity operates outside of Ontario, and does
not contract with retail users in Ontario, is an important
consideration.
The Court concluded that the only entity over which it could assert
presence-based jurisdiction was Coinbase Canada. This decision was
based mostly on the fact that Coinbase Canada itself believed it
was carrying on business in Ontario, as evidenced by it having
filed a document with the Ontario Ministry of Government Services
indicating that it commenced business activity in Ontario in
December 2020.
Consent-based Jurisdiction
According to the Plaintiff, the Foreign Coinbase Defendants
consented to Ontario's jurisdiction on two grounds, both of which
were rejected by the Court:
1. User Agreement: The Plaintiff pointed to the Coinbase
Canada user agreement, which contained a provision that provided
all complaints, even those arising prior to the agreement, were to
be heard in Ontario. The Court determined that the user agreement
did not purport to bind any other Coinbase entity, including the
Foreign Coinbase Defendants, and therefore, could not be a basis on
which consent-based jurisdiction is established over the Foreign
Coinbase Defendants; and
2. Securities Regulator Dealings: The Court determined that,
although over the course of dealing with securities regulators, the
Foreign Coinbase Defendants ultimately submitted to the
jurisdiction of Ontario, their acceptance was neither retroactive
nor retrospective and did not cover the relevant time period.
Assumed Jurisdiction
The Court also rejected the Plaintiff's claim that it should assume
jurisdiction, on the basis that Ontario is not substantially
affected (a term the Court did not provide guidance on) by the
conduct of the Foreign Coinbase Defendants, and no more than a
number of other jurisdictions where clients executed transactions.
Forum non Conveniens
Critical to the Court's decision to permanently stay the proceeding
against Coinbase Canada was the fact that the Plaintiff only traded
in digital assets when his contractual relationship was with a
Foreign Coinbase Defendant. Coinbase Canada only became a
counterparty to a user agreement with the Plaintiff after the
Plaintiff's claims arose. The Court noted that a different
plaintiff, who had performed a transaction when Coinbase Canada was
a party to the user agreement, may have been successful in
resisting the stay.
The Coinbase Defendants argued that Ireland would be the more
appropriate forum. They relied on expert evidence that Ireland has
a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of financial instruments
and securities, which substantially mirrors the substantive
provisions of the Act relied upon by the Plaintiff. Moreover, the
evidence indicated that Irish courts would assume jurisdiction
arising out of an alleged improper distribution of securities
through Coinbase Europe.
The Court agreed that "Ireland is a clearly more appropriate forum"
and held that the fact that Ireland does not have class proceedings
process is "of no import". In this regard, the Court noted that
Ontario courts have frequently deferred to jurisdictions with no
class proceedings, "a deference that reflects the importance of
comity in the forum analysis".
Key Takeaways
-- Coinbase is a good example of a holistic jurisdictional
analysis undertaken by an Ontario Court. While the Court does
enunciate some helpful general principles, it is also a testament
to jurisdiction being a fairly fact-specific analysis.
-- The decision reinforces that the mere accessibility of a
website in a province, without more, may not necessarily be enough
to establish jurisdiction in that province despite compelling
public interest concerns, such as the protection of individual
traders and the regulation of securities, especially in the new and
complex sphere of cryptocurrency.
-- The Court's forum non conveniens analysis, and decision to
stay the action against the Canadian entity, emphasizes that the
existence and performance of a contract with a party in Ontario may
lend itself to both establishing jurisdiction, and defending
against a stay. [GN]
COLDWELL BANKER: Weekes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tyler Weekes, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. COLDWELL BANKER, Case No.
2024-CH-04177 was removed from the Chancery Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on May 28, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-04373.
The State Court Action alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). Specifically, Plaintiff claims
Coldwell Banker collected and stored brokers' biometric data
through the use of an allegedly fingerprint-based lock box system
without first obtaining the brokers' consent and without creating
or complying with the retention and destruction policies under
BIPA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin O. Kay, Esq.
Ambria D. Mahomes, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
320 S. Canal Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 569-1000
Facsimile: (312) 569-3000
Email: justin.kay@faegredrinker.com
ambria.mahomes@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Aaron Van Oort, Esq.
Andrew M. Taylor, Esq.
2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 766-7000
Email aaron.vanoort@faegredrinker.com
andrew.taylor@faegredrinker.com
COSTAR GROUP: Case Schedule Order Entered in Portillo Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANETTE PORTILLO, et al.,
v. COSTAR GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00229-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order
establishing the following case schedule:
Event Date
Parties submit proposals for interim 14 days after ruling on
the
deadlines for discovery negotiations motion(s) to dismiss
regarding written discovery, including
the potential timing of rolling
productions prior to substantial
completion
Substantial completion of agreed upon 6 months after ruling on
Data productions the motion(s) to
dismiss
Class certification motion and Within 14 months after
Supporting expert reports ruling on the motion(s)
to
dismiss
Class certification opposition and 90 days from class
Supporting expert reports (including certification motion
any Daubert motion challenging expert
report submitted with class
certification motion)
Class certification reply and expert 60 days from class
Rebuttal reports (including any certification
opposition
Daubert opposition and any Daubert
motion to class certification
opposition expert report)
CoStar is a provider of information, analytics, and marketing
services to the commercial property industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1vveU0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CREDIT SUISSE: $3.45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Transacted in Eurodollar Futures and/or Options on
Eurodollar Futures on Exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011, inclusive,
You May Be Eligible to Receive Payment of a Portion of Additional
Settlement Funds of $3.45 Million
If you previously submitted a valid claim in the Prior Settlements,
you do not need to submit another Proof of Claim to participate in
this Settlement unless you wish to amend your claim.
This is a final settlement of a class action lawsuit involving the
alleged manipulation of U.S. Dollar LIBOR ("LIBOR") and its impact
on Eurodollar futures and/or options on Eurodollar futures
("Eurodollar Futures") that are linked to LIBOR. If approved, the
proposed Settlement of $3.45 million with the Remaining Defendants
would completely resolve the pending litigation in the
Exchange-Based Action.
The Settlement with the Remaining Defendants -- namely, Credit
Suisse AG ("Credit Suisse"), Lloyds Bank plc and Bank of Scotland
plc (together, "Lloyds"), NatWest Markets plc (f/k/a The Royal Bank
of Scotland plc) ("NatWest"), Portigon AG (f/k/a WestLB) and
Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG (n/k/a Westdeutsche Immobilien
Servicing AG) (together, "Portigon"), Royal Bank of Canada and RBC
Capital Markets, LLC (together, "RBC"), Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A.
(f/k/a Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.)
("Rabobank"), The Norinchukin Bank ("Norinchukin"), MUFG Bank, Ltd.
(f/k/a The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.), and UBS AG ("UBS")
(together Credit Suisse, Lloyds, NatWest, Portigon, RBC, Rabobank,
Norinchukin, MUFG, and UBS are referred to as the "Remaining
Defendants") -- impacts persons, corporations and other legal
entities that transacted in Eurodollar futures and/or options on
Eurodollar futures on exchanges, including without limitation, the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the "CME"), between January 1, 2003
and May 31, 2011, inclusive. A detailed description and additional
information on the case can be found on the settlement website.
The Remaining Defendants have entered into this proposed settlement
to resolve the claims asserted against them. The Remaining
Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing.
Am I included?
You are included in the Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if
you transacted in Eurodollar futures and/or options on Eurodollar
futures on exchanges, including without limitation, the CME,
between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011, inclusive.
What does the Settlement provide?
The Settlement, if it receives final approval from the Court, will
provide a $3.45 million Settlement Fund that will be used to pay
eligible Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims. The
Settlement brings the total settlement amount in the Exchange-Based
Action to $190,450,000. The Court previously granted Final Approval
for settlements in this Action, which created an aggregate
Settlement Fund of $187,000,000 (the "Prior Settlements"). On
October 24, 2023, the Court authorized distribution of the
aggregate Settlement Fund and the distribution process is ongoing.
If the Court approves this Settlement for $3.45 million, a separate
distribution motion will be made once the claims administration
process is completed.
How can I get a payment?
If you transacted in U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based Eurodollar futures
and/or options on Eurodollar futures on exchanges such as the CME
between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011, inclusive, and do not
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must file a timely
and valid Proof of Claim Form to be eligible for a payment. If you
previously submitted a valid claim in the Prior Settlements, you do
not need to submit another Proof of Claim to participate in this
Settlement unless you wish to amend your claim. You may obtain a
Proof of Claim Form on the settlement website referenced below and
submit it online or by mail. The amount of any payment under the
Settlement will be determined by the Proposed Plan of Distribution,
which is available on the settlement website at
www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com. At this time, it is unknown
how much each Settlement Class Member who submits a valid claim
will receive.
To be timely, all Proof of Claim Forms must be postmarked by mail
or submitted electronically by October 21, 2024.
What are my rights?
You have the right to remain a member of the Settlement Class or to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. If you remain a member
of the Settlement Class, and if the Settlement is approved, you may
participate pro rata in the Net Settlement Fund for the Remaining
Defendants by timely submitting a Proof of Claim Form. If you
participate in the Settlement, you will, however, lose your right
to individually sue any of the Remaining Defendants or their
affiliated persons and entities for the alleged conduct, and will
be bound by the Court's decisions concerning the Settlement. If you
stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the proposed
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Distribution, and the request for
attorneys' fees and expense reimbursement mentioned below by August
15, 2024. Any objections must be filed with the Court and delivered
to designated representative Settlement Class Counsel and counsel
for the Defendants in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Full Notice.
If you want to keep your right to individually sue any of the
Remaining Defendants or their affiliated persons and entities, you
must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by August 15, 2024,
in the manner and form explained in the detailed Full Notice. All
Settlement Class Members who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the litigation pursuant to the Settlement Agreements. If
you properly and timely exclude yourself from the Settlement Class,
you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the litigation and you will not be eligible to receive any
payments from the Net Settlement Fund for the Remaining Defendants
if the Settlement is approved.
A hearing will be held on September 5, 2024 before the Honorable
Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Court Judge, in
Courtroom 21A, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007,
for the purpose of determining, among other things, whether to
approve the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Distribution,
Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees of up to one third of
the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of litigation expenses. You
or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense.
THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY OF THE FULL NOTICE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
WHICH CONTAINS MORE DETAILED INFORMATION THAT YOU SHOULD READ. THE
FULL NOTICE AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS AVAILABLE AT:
www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com
Class members should continue to review the settlement website for
important updates about the Settlement and the litigation.
USD LIBOR EURODOLLAR FUTURES SETTLEMENT
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170990
Milwaukee, WI 53217
www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com
info@USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com
1-800-918-8964
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Shakoor-Delgado Seeks Expense Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------------
April Shakoor-Delgado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03629 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2024) arises
under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23 for Defendant's failure to reimburse Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees for all business-related expenses.
The complaint alleges that CrossCountry failed to adequately
reimburse the IWPCA Class Members for the costs of performing their
job duties remotely in their work for CrossCountry. Specifically,
CrrossCountry has failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the IWPCA Class
Members for the costs of high-speed internet, dedicated phone, and
dedicated home office expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by CrossCountry as a loan officer from
approximately February 2019 through approximately January 2020.
CrossCountry is a retail mortgage lender who employs various remote
employees in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Claims Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE
CROSS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00075-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams
entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to decertify the
Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective claims.
-- The Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part plaintiffs' motion
for
partial summary judgment.
-- The Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part defendant's motion
for
partial summary judgment.
The Court is not persuaded that plaintiffs have satisfied either of
the elements required for equitable tolling here. Plaintiffs have
not shown that they were diligent in pursuing their rights.
Plaintiffs also have not put forward facts showing an extraordinary
circumstance stood in their way of pursuing said rights. Thus,
plaintiffs’ argument fails on this front, and the statutes of
limitation will not
be equitably tolled back to 2012. Defendant's motion for summary
judgment regarding equitable tolling is granted.
There are genuine issues of material fact concerning all of the
elements of the Plaintiffs' fraud claim that defendant challenges.
Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
fraud claim is denied.
The Court previously conditionally certified plaintiffs' Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") claim as a collective action. (Doc. 147).
The class definition for the collective action is:
"All drivers who drove for CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time on
or
after October 23, 2017, pursuant to an Independent Contractor
Operating Agreement (ICOA) and who have not leased more than one
truck at a time to CRST."
The Court also previously certified two of plaintiffs' claims -- a
claim under the Iowa Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and a claim under
the Truth in Leasing Act ("TILA") -- as class actions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The class definition for these claims is:
"All Lease Operators who drove for CRST Expedited Inc. as a Team
Driver, Lead Driver, or Solo Driver pursuant to an Equipment
Lease
to lease a truck from CRST Lincoln Sales, Inc. and an
Independent
Contractor Operating Agreement ("ICOAs") with CRST Expedited,
Inc.
and who have not leased more than one truck at a time to CRST
Expedited, Inc. during the applicable limitations period,
subject
to any equitable tolling and equitable estoppel.
CRST provides transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DYjPOL at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAIKIN COMFORT: Perry Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Perry, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION,
INC. dba DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DIST INC, a Texas corporation;
DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES MANUFACTURING, L.P. formerly GOODMAN
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., a Texas limited partnership; GOODMAN
DISTRIBUTION, INC. dba GOODMAN, an entity of unknown form; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C24-00141 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra
Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 28, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-03204.
The Complaint alleged class action claims for purported unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest break
violations, unreimbursed business expenses, inaccurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties, failure to maintain required
records, violation of Labor Code and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-4839
Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
Email: jnordlander@seyfarth.com
DENNY'S FASHION: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Thorne Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. DENNY'S FASHION LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04031
(S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://shopdennys.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, the 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, the
lawsuit contends.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
March 5, 2024, in an attempt to purchase the Under Armour Tech Tee
from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access
barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted person; and that denied Plaintiff the full
enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website. Furthermore,
the Plaintiff has been discriminated against by the Defendant's
conduct and violations of the statues and regulations by being
treated unequally from sighted persons due to the Plaintiff's
disability and the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
injury as a result of the Defendant's discriminatory practices,
says the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff 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.
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 Denny's online retail store, which
offers apparel, accessories and other products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
DIMENSIONS GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Thompson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YENDA THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. DIMENSIONS GROUP SERVICES, Case No. 2:24-cv-02231
(E.D. Pa., May 24, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.
During the three-year period covered by this lawsuit, the Defendant
generally has paid the Plaintiff and other home care workers their
straight-time hourly wage for all hours worked, including hours
worked over 40 per week. For example, during the two-week pay
period ending Apr. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff was credited with
working 144 hours and was merely paid her straight-time hourly rate
of $12 for each hour she worked, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings her FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and brings her PMWA claim as a class
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a home care worker.
The Defendant owns and operates a business that provides home
health care services to clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
DIRECT DIGITAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct
Digital Holdings, Inc. ("Direct Digital" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
DRCT). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse information regarding the Company, including allegations
that:
(1) Direct Digital's transition toward a "cookie-less"
advertising environment was accelerated and would impact revenue in
2024;
(2) Direct Digital's alternatives to third-party cookies,
including planned investments in AI and machine learning to build
on first-party data sources, would not be viable alternatives to
third-party cookies and similar tracking technologies;
(3) Direct Digital did not have adequate solutions to address
the impending phase out of third-party cookies by Google; and
(4) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
basis for their positive statements about the effectiveness of
Direct Digital's platform and related financial results, growth,
and prospects.
If you bought Direct Digital shares between April 17, 2023 and
March 25, 2024 and suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/direct-digital-holdings/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is July 22, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
DOM STORES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Danso Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY DANSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DOM STORES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04019 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.perfume.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
DOM STORES, LLC specializes in perfumes and colognes for both men
and women, featuring popular designer brands. [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
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DOXIMITY INC: Continues to Defend Dalton Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doximity Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 23, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Dalton class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Beginning in April 2024, the Company and certain of their directors
and officers have been named in lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit captioned Dalton v. Doximity, Inc., et al. (May 9,
2024) is brought derivatively on behalf of the Company, and asserts
claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste
against certain of its directors and officers on a similar basis to
the securities lawsuit.
The defendants intend to defend vigorously against these actions.
Based in San Francisco, CA, Doximity, Inc. operates as an online
networking service for medical professionals. [BN]
DOXIMITY INC: Continues to Defend Kissler Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doximity Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 23, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Kissler class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Beginning in April 2024, the Company and certain of their directors
and officers have been named in lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit captioned Kissler v. Doximity, Inc., et al. (Apr. 17,
2024) is a putative securities class action brought on behalf of
the Company's investors from February 9, 2022 and April 1, 2024 and
asserts claims against the Company, its CEO and CFO for
misrepresentations and omissions about our growth and
profitability.
The defendants intend to defend vigorously against these actions.
Based in San Francisco, CA, Doximity, Inc. operates as an online
networking service for medical professionals. [BN]
DREAMLAND BABY: Fehrenbach Alleges Deceptive Sale of Sleep Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN FEHRENBACH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREAMLAND BABY CO., a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01112 (C.D. Cal., May 23,
2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive marketing of
its weighted sleep products for children including, but not limited
to the Dream Weighted Sleep Sack; weighted swaddles such as the
Dream Weighted Sleep Swaddle, the Dream Weighted Transition
Swaddle, and the Bamboo Weighted Transition Swaddle; and a Weighted
Toddler Blanket.
According to the complaint, Dreamland boldly markets that it works
with expert advisors to ensure the said products are safe and
effective products that meet the highest quality standards.
Unbeknownst to consumers, however, these products are not safe and
do not meet industry or regulatory guidelines for baby sleep
products. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention have all advised against the use of
weighted sleep sacks and weighted swaddles on infants, with some of
these agencies expressly warning that these baby products are
harmful. In callous disregard for safety, the Defendant continues
to sell these products, without any effort to redesign these
products or to warn consumers that various health and safety
regulatory agencies advise against their use, says the suit.
Headquartered in Newport Beach, CA, Dreamland Baby Co. manufactures
and sells weighted sleep products for children. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 751-5928
E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Ryan T. Gott, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: 612-389-0600
Facsimile: 612-389-0610
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
rgott@pwfirm.com
- and -
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: 865-247-0080
E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLP
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
ENVATO PTY: Plotsker Seeks Damages for Video Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN PLOTSKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ENVATO PTY LTD.; ENVATO ELEMENTS PTY LTD., Case No.
2:24-cv-04412 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Defendants own and operate the subscription service, Envato
Elements, offering paid subscriptions for its library of
prerecorded videos to content creators. Plaintiff and Class members
paid a subscription fee starting at $16.50 per month to license and
download prerecorded videos at www.elements.envato.com. Allegedly,
Defendants knowingly discloses its subscribers' private information
regarding their personal video-viewing habits and activities to a
third party, Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly known as Facebook),
without subscribers' consent, in violation of the VPPA, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action to recover actual and statutory
damages against Defendants for their alleged unlawful conduct.
Envato Pty Ltd is an Australia-based company specializing in
digital creative assets and templates. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 807-1666
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
EPSILON DATA: Thompson ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMES THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. EPSILON DATA
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00628 (E.D. Mo., May
3, 2024) was removed from the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, State of Missouri, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 3,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:24-cv-00628 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's three-count petition alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Epsilon Data Management, LLC provides direct marketing
services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Caleb J. Halberg, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
10 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 876-1700
E-mail: chalberg@dykema.com
EVANSTON, IL: Judicial Watch Sues Over Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Watch announced it filed a class action lawsuit against
Evanston, Illinois on behalf of six individuals over the city's use
of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program
which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of
black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and
1969. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The class action, civil rights lawsuit challenges "on Equal
Protection grounds Defendant City of Evanston's use of race as an
eligibility requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments
to residents and direct descendants of residents of the city
five-plus decades if not more than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a
judgment declaring Defendant's use of race to be unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining Defendant from
continuing to use race as a requirement for receiving payment under
the program and request that the Court award them and all class
members damages in the amount of $25,000 each." Through a series of
resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to provide
$25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between
1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and
great-grandchildren.
The program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment because:
Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental
interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989);
see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307
((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing "societal
discrimination" as "an amorphous concept of injury that may be
ageless in its reach into the past.") Remedying discrimination from
55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination experienced at any
time by an individual's parents, grandparents, or great
grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental
interest . . .
Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a
race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among
other shortcomings, Defendant's use of race as a proxy for
experiencing discrimination between 1919 and 1969 does not limit
eligibility to persons who actually experienced discrimination
during that relevant time period and therefore is overinclusive.
Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such
as requiring prospective recipients show that they or their
parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced
housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of
an Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires
for the third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant
take into account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before
adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.
The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are
current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African
American and were at least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969.
Evanston refers to this group as "ancestors."
The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African
American who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one
parent, grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or
identified) as Black or African American, lived in Evanston for any
period between 1919 and 1969, and was at least 18 at the time.
Evanston refers to this group as "direct descendants." A "direct
descendant" is not required to be a current resident of Evanston to
receive the payment.
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit: "At no point in the
application process are persons in the first and second groups
required to present evidence that they or their ancestors
experienced housing discrimination or otherwise suffered harm
because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure or
some other unlawful act or series of acts by Evanston between 1919
and 1969. In effect, Evanston is using race as a proxy for having
experienced discrimination during this time period."
The city committed $20 million to the program.
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that the six plaintiffs
satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the
program as "direct descendants" other that the race requirement
(the actual number of individuals who are potential class members
is in the tens of thousands).
"The Evanston, Illinois' 'reparations' program is nothing more than
a ploy to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,"
said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This scheme
unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not
identify as Black or African American. This class action, civil
rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind
Constitution."
Judicial Watch is being assisted in the lawsuit by Christine
Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC.
Judicial Watch lawsuits challenging unconstitutional discrimination
are extensive.
On January 29, 2024, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of
San Francisco taxpayers over a city program that discriminates in
favor of biological black and Latino men who identify as women in
the distribution of tax money. The lawsuit was filed after Judicial
Watch earlier forced the release of records from the City of San
Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black and
Latino transgenders (biological men) in the Guaranteed Income for
Trans People program.
In December 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's ruling and allowed Judicial Watch's historic lawsuit filed
on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers' contract that
provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial
minorities to proceed.
The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022 settled a Judicial Watch
federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially
discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program.
Additionally, the city also agreed to remove racially
discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related program that
provides grants to educators.
In May 2022, Judicial Watch won a court battle against California's
gender quota law for corporate boards. The verdict came after a
28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar ruling in Judicial
Watch's favor in April finding California's diversity mandate for
corporate boards unconstitutional. [GN]
EXTO INC: Krueger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
EDEN KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXTO INC. d/b/a ATLAS, Defendant, Case No.
24-002280-CI (Fla., Cir., Pinellas Cty., May 23, 2024) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.
EXTO INC. d/b/a ATLAS is a provider of a credit card service
platform for consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
FASTLY INC: Faces Class Action Over Violations of Securities Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE:FSLY) and
certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
docketed under 24-cv-03170, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Fastly securities between February 15, 2024 and
May 1, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Fastly
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 23, 2024 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Fastly operates an edge cloud platform for processing, serving, and
securing customer's applications. The edge cloud is a category of
Infrastructure-as-a-Service that purportedly enables developers to
build, secure, and deliver digital experiences. Fastly's platform
includes a Content Delivery Network ("CDN"), or a geographically
distributed network of proxy servers and their data centers.
Content owners such as media companies and e-commerce vendors pay
CDN operators to deliver their content to their end users. Certain
companies have adopted a "Multi-CDN" framework which combines
multiple CDNs from various providers into one large global
network.
In 2023, a "consolidation trend" emerged in the CDN industry, in
which several prominent Multi-CDN companies reduced the number of
CDN vendors they had previously managed in an effort to simplify
their operations and increase efficiency, opting instead to manage
fewer CDN vendors. Facing reduced competition, Fastly was able to
materially increase its market share and drive favorable sequential
growth.
On February 14, 2024, Fastly issued a press release providing full
year ("FY") 2024 revenue guidance in a range of $580 million to
$590 million. In that same press release, Fastly's Chief Executive
Officer Defendant Todd Nightingale ("Nightingale") was quoted as
stating, "[t]his quarter demonstrated the progress we've made in
operational and financial rigor resulting in strong gross margins
and non-GAAP net income," and "[o]ur go-to-market, packaging and
channel efforts through 2023 delivered an inflection in our
customer acquisition as we closed out the year. This positions us
well for 2024, driving our mission to make every user experience
fast, safe, and engaging."
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) contrary
to its representations to investors, Fastly was in fact
experiencing a significant deceleration in growth among its largest
customers and was losing the increased market share it had gained
as a result of the 2023 CDN consolidation trend; (ii) the foregoing
issues were likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's revenue growth; (iii) accordingly, the Company was
unlikely to meet its own previously issued revenue guidance for FY
2024; (iv) as a result, the Company's financial position and/or
prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On May 1, 2024, Fastly announced its first quarter ("Q1") 2024
financial results. Despite the Defendants' positive statements just
three months earlier about Fastly's performance and near-term
business prospects, the Company reported revenue of only $133.52
million, missing consensus estimates by $0.35 million. The Company
also lowered its FY 2024 revenue guidance to a range of $555
million to $565 million, significantly below its previously issued
FY 2024 revenue guidance of $580 million to $590 million, and
likewise below consensus estimates of $584.62 million for the same
period.
That same day, Fastly held a conference call with investors and
analysts to discuss the Company's Q1 2024 results (the "Q1 2024
Earnings Call"). In explaining the Company's disappointing revised
FY 2024 outlook, Defendant Nightingale stated that "[t]he biggest
factor is a reduction of revenue from a small number of our largest
customers. The first-quarter revenue from our top 10 customers
dropped from 40% to 38%[,]" and that the Company saw "significant
volatility" in the Multi-CDN strategy run by many of Fastly's top
10 accounts. Further, Fastly's Chief Financial Officer Defendant
Ronald Kisling stated that the Company is "facing a challenging
environment of revenue declines in our largest customers,
overshadowing the impact of new customer acquisition and product
pipeline[,]" and that the Company would not benefit in 2024 from
the favorable impact of the early 2023 CDN consolidation that drove
favorable sequential growth in the prior year same period.
Then, on May 2, 2024, Bank of America downgraded Fastly stock from
a "Buy" rating to an "Underperform" rating and cut its price target
on the stock from $18 per share to a mere $8 per share, noting that
"[d]ecelerating growth in Fastly's largest customers, share loss in
delivery, and limited visibility in 2H cause us to question a
rebound in 2024," and that "[w]hile we continue to like Fastly's
positioning in the edge compute market, we see it as a 2025
opportunity instead of a near-term growth driver."
Following these developments, Fastly's stock price fell $4.14 per
share, or 32.02%, to close at $8.79 per share on May 2, 2024.
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.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
FBCS INC: Morgan Sues Over Data Security Failure
------------------------------------------------
ONIEQUE MORGAN, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND
CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02163 (E.D.
Pa., May 21, 2024) arises from the failure of the Defendant in
safeguarding and securing the personally identifiable information
of approximately 2.7 million individuals, including Plaintiff.
The suit alleges that due to Defendant's negligence, between
February 14 and February 26, 2024, cybercriminals were able to gain
access to Defendant's data records and access this sensitive and
valuable PII. The Defendant breached its duty by, among other
things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect Class Members' PII from
unauthorized access and disclosure. The Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all other Class Members, asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment,
and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages,
statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all
other relief authorized by law.
Headquartered in Hatboro, PA, FBCS, Inc. is a nationwide licensed
collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
Andrew C. White, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
awhite@fbfglaw.com
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: MacDermott Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Troy N. MacDermott v.
Federal Bureau of Prisons; Peters, Collette S., Director, BOP, Case
No. 0:24-cv-01984-JMB-DTS (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying the class defined as:
"any person who (1) is currently incarcerated; (2) has been
Incarcerated since April 1st, 2020; or (3) will be
incarcerated
Until such time as video visitation is implemented at the
prison
they are incarcerated at; at a men's prison operated by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons."
Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) manages federal prisons, and
community-based facilities that provide work and opportunities to
assist offenders.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8gHH86 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Reichbart Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARC REICHBART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01876 (E.D. Pa., May 2, 2024) is
a class action against FBCS for its failure to secure and safeguard
Plaintiff and approximately 1,955,385 other individuals' personally
identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers,
dates of birth, and account information.
FBCS reported that on February 26, 2024, it "discovered
unauthorized access to certain systems in its network" and
subsequently "launched an investigation." FBCS's investigation
revealed that its network "was subject to unauthorized access
between February 14 and February 26, 2024, and the unauthorized
actor had the ability to view or acquire certain information on the
FBCS network during the period of access."
The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms resulting from the massive and preventable disclosure
of such sensitive and personal information. The Plaintiff seeks to
remedy the harms resulting from the Data Breach on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was
accessed and exfiltrated during the Data Breach.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. is a
Pennsylvania-based debt collection agency that provides accounts
receivable management and collection services across a variety of
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Melissa Clark, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505-4521
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: mclark@ahdootwolfson.com
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Stallone Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH STALLONE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01901 (E.D. Pa., May
4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated customers' sensitive personal identifiable information,
including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and
account information.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII -- and failed to even
encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This
unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to FBCS' negligent
and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect
its customers' sensitive data. The hackers targeted and obtained
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class
Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data
Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. is a nationally
licensed debt collection agency in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (215) 888-3214
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 West Las. Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
201 Alhabra Circle, Suite 1100
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 206-9057
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.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
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Sayce Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER L. SAYCE, et
al., v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00076-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and appointing class representatives and class counsel.
The Court certifies the following class:
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Forescout common stock between May 9 or 10, 201914 and May 15,
2020, both dates inclusive."
Lead plaintiffs the Glazer Funds15 and Meitav Mutual Funds Ltd. are
appointed as Class Representatives.
Pomerantz LLP and Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP are appointed as
CoClass Counsel.
On Jan. 1, 2020, the plaintiff Christopher Sayce, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a securities class
action lawsuit against defendants Forescout Technologies, Inc.,
Michael Decesare, and Christopher Harms.
The Plaintiff Sayce alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on a series of
statements made in 2019 about Forescout's sales pipeline and
revenue guidance.
The proposed class period was February 7, 2019 through October 9,
2019, with the relevant corrective disclosures alleged to have been
made in October or November of 2019.
Forescout provides cybersecurity services for large computer
networks.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=acuD6J at no extra
charge.[CC]
GGP INC: $42.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 16
--------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE GGP, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION
CONSOLIDATED
C.A. No. 2018-0267-NAC
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All record and beneficial holders of GGP Inc. ("GGP")
common stock who purchased, acquired, or held such securities at
any time from November 11, 2017 through and including August 28,
2018 (the "Class Period") but excluding the Excluded Persons (the
"Class").1
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending.
In the Action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants (identified
below) breached fiduciary duties owed to GGP stockholders in
connection with the acquisition by Defendant Brookfield Property
Partners L.P. ("BPY") of the GGP stock it did not already own (the
"Merger") and/or aided and abetted such alleged breaches of duty.
BPY made its first Merger offer on November 11, 2017, and the
Merger closed on August 28, 2018 (the "Closing"). Defendants deny
all allegations of wrongdoing and liability.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Randy Kosinski, Arthur
Susman, and Robert Lowinger ("Plaintiffs"), individually and on
behalf of the Class, and Defendants BPY, Mary Lou Fiala, Janice R.
Fukakusa, John K. Haley, Daniel B. Hurwitz, Christina M. Lofgren,
Richard B. Clark, J. Bruce Flatt, Brian W. Kingston, and Sandeep
Mathrani (collectively, the "Individual Defendants", and, together
with BPY, the "Defendants", and Defendants and Plaintiffs, the
"Parties", and each a "Party") have reached a proposed settlement
of the Action for $42,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") as
set forth in the Stipulation (the "Settlement"), a copy of which is
available at www.GGPStockholderLitigation.com. The Settlement, if
approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on July 16, 2024
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Nathan A. Cook, Vice Chancellor,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, or remotely by telephone or
videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other
things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs
and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and
whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class
representatives for the Class and Class Counsel should be finally
appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv)
determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and
the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v)
determine whether the Order and Final Judgment approving the
Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine
whether to approve the Fee and Expense Application for attorneys'
fees not to exceed 28.5% of the Settlement plus reimbursement of
litigation expenses and service awards to Plaintiffs not to exceed
$10,000 each to be paid out of the Settlement Fund; (viii) hear and
rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or the Fee and Expense application; and (ix)
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the
Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at
the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.GGPStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice or Postcard Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at In re GGP, Inc.
Stockholder Class Action Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 877-411-4621,
info@GGPStockholderLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also
be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.GGPStockholderLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to those Settlement Class Members who held GGP shares at the
time such shares were converted into the right to receive the
Merger Consideration in connection with the Closing. As explained
in further detail in the Notice, Settlement Class Members do not
need to submit a claim form or take any other action to be entitled
to payment.
Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
or Class Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award must
be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants'
Counsel such that they are received no later than July 1, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
In re GGP, Inc. Stockholder Class Action Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Toll-Free Number: 877-411-4621
Email: info@GGPStockholderLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
the following Lead Counsel:
Samuel L. Closic
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.
1310 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 888-6500
slclosic@prickett.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE:
Dated: April 22, 2024
GNC HOLDINGS: Soto Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Soto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GNC Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03613
(N.D. Ill., May 3, 2024) is a class action for fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's labels on its "Super
Magnesium" dietary supplements claim that one serving consisting of
two caplets contain 400 mg of elemental magnesium. The Defendant
allegedly misled consumers because the Magnesium Supplements do not
contain 400 mg of elemental magnesium in a single 2 caplet serving.
Instead, Plaintiff's counsel's independent investigation reveals
the Supplements contain approximately 152 mg of elemental magnesium
per serving, significantly less magnesium than what is claimed and
displayed on the product's labels, says the suit.
GNC Holdings, LLC markets, advertises, distributes and sells its
supplements throughout the United States, including in
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
GOLDEN NUGGET: $22MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN RE GOLDEN NUGGET ONLINE
GAMING, INC. STOCKHOLDERS
LITIGATION
C.A. No. 2022-0797-JTL
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF GOLDEN NUGGET ONLINE
GAMING, INC. ("GNOG") WHO, AS PART OF THE ACQUISITION (THE
"TRANSACTION") OF GNOG BY DRAFTKINGS INC. ("DRAFTKINGS"), RECEIVED
0.365 SHARES OF NEW DRAFTKINGS CLASS A COMMON STOCK FOR EACH GNOG
SHARE THEY OWNED.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) and an Order of the Delaware
Court of Chancery (the "Court"), that the above-captioned
consolidated stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
certified as a non-opt-out class action on behalf of the Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, Compromise and Release dated March 1, 2024 (the
"Stipulation of Settlement," available at
www.GoldenNuggetStockholderLitigation.com). Undefined terms used in
this summary notice have the meaning set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement.
YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) and an Order of the Court that
the Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf of themselves and the
other members of the Class, have reached a proposed settlement of
the Action with Defendants and certain non-parties for a payment of
$22,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement") on the terms and conditions
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. If the Settlement is
approved by the Court, it will resolve all claims in the Action.
A settlement hearing will be held on July 9, 2024 at 11:00a.m. at
the Court of Chancery in the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine, among
other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation of Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the
Court; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation of
Settlement should be granted; and (iii) whether Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, and incentive award to Lead Plaintiff Steven
Eschbach should be approved.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT. If you have not yet received
the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear
(the "Notice"), you may obtain copies of the Notice by contacting
the Settlement Administrator at: In re Golden Nugget Online Gaming,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Settlement Administrator, c/o A.B.
Data Ltd, P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217. Copies of the
Notice can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the
Settlement Administrator,
www.GoldenNuggetStockholderLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Eligible Class Members." The "Eligible Class Members"
consist of Class Members who received or were entitled to receive
the Transaction Consideration for their Eligible Shares. For the
avoidance of doubt, Eligible Class Members exclude all Excluded
Stockholders. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive
a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the
product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible
Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" under the
Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount
of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares.
As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to
Eligible Class Members will be made in the same manner in which
Eligible Class Members received the Transaction Consideration.
Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form or take
any other action in order to receive payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement and/or Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, and incentive award to Lead Plaintiff Eschbach
must be filed with the Register in Chancery and delivered to the
Class Counsel and Defendants' counsel identified in the Notice such
that they are received no later than June 24, 2024, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
All questions about this summary notice and the proposed Settlement
should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Class
Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to:
In re Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. Stockholders Litigation
Settlement Administrator
c/o A.B. Data Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
info@GoldenNuggetStockholderLitigation.com
www.GoldenNuggetStockholderLitigation.com
877-235-9861
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to the following Class Counsel:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
(302) 499-3600
David Tejtel
Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road
Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
(888) 529-1108
Dated: May 10, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GOOGLE LLC: Violates Driver's Privacy Protection Act, Wilson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-03176 (N.D.
Cal., May 24, 2024) is a class action on behalf of all persons who
visited the California Department of Motor Vehicles website to
apply for, renew, or check the status of a disability parking
placard pursuant to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members, when
they visited the DMV website for this purpose, Defendant Google
used Google Analytics and DoubleClick tags to unlawfully obtain
their personal disability information, and the contents of their
communications with the DMV about their disability. Google then
used that information for its own unlawful purposes. Google's
conduct does not fall within any permitted purpose under the law
and occurred without Plaintiff's or Class Members' consent.
Google's actions and activities violate the DPPA, because Google
obtained personal information from motor vehicle records and used
it for a purpose not permitted under the law, says the suit.
The Plaintiff's class action complaint seeks to recover all
available remedies, including statutory penalties and punitive
damages, and to redress the wrongs imposed by Google on Plaintiff
and Class Members.
GOOGLE LLC is an American multinational corporation and technology
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
David Fernandes, Esq.
Sterling L. Cluff, Esq.
Michael J. Pacelli, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
scluff@baronbudd.com
mpacelli@baronbudd.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
DON BIVENS PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 708-1450
E-mail: don@donbivens.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Underpays Total Loss Claims, Abbassy Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMIRA ABBASSY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY and
CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-05853 (D.N.J.,
May 6, 2024) seeks to recover damages from Defendants to the
fullest extent permitted under the civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act laws.
According to the complaint, rather than follow New Jersey law,
Defendant GEICO conspires with Defendant CCC to undervalue
claimants' total loss vehicles through the use of fraudulent and
deceptive CCC valuation reports that purportedly establish the base
value of insureds' total loss vehicles. GEICO's systematic
undervaluation and underpayments of total loss claims, through its
reliance on and use of CCC's fraudulent and deceptive valuation
reports, violate its insurance contracts with its insured
customers, as well as New Jersey regulations governing the
adjustment of total loss claims, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was insured under a GEICO automobile insurance
policy.
Government Employees Insurance Company is a Nebraska corporation
with its principal place of business in Maryland. GEICO maintains a
claim center office in New Jersey and conducts business and issues
automobile insurance policies in New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
Edward A. Coleman, Esq.
LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 376-8450
GRAHAM WINE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Martin Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GRAHAM WINE & LIQUOR, LTD., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03760 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, wwww.bqewineandliquors.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
GRAHAM WINE & LIQUOR, LTD. specialize in wines and spirits that are
ethically-produced. [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
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
GRAY MEDIA: McCausland Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MCCAUSLAND is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled David McCausland, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gray Media Group,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-7539, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The suit was brought over the Defendant's alleged wrongful
disclosure of video tape rental or sales records.
On Nov. 3, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on May 18, 2023.
On Mar. 31, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
On Apr. 16, 2024, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant.
Accordingly, the case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned David McCausland v. Gray Media
Group, Inc., Case No. 24-1266, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 10, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID MCCAUSLAND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Defendant-Appellee GRAY TELEVISION, INC. is represented by:
Mark Melodia, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3200
GROVE INC: Tripline Sues Over Unlawful Work Scheduling Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLMANE TRIPLINE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GROVE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
240502550 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., May 21, 2024) seeks all
relief available for Defendant's violations of the Philadelphia
Fair Workweek Employment Standards.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly employee at The
Grove, under the Wendy's brand name, located inside of
Philadelphia's William H. Gray III 30th Street Station from
February 2022 through July 2023. During Plaintiff's employment, The
Grove consistently failed to provide her and other employees with
14-days' notice of changes to their work schedules. On other
occasions, The Grove required Plaintiff to remain at work long past
her scheduled shifts (more than 20 minutes) without any prior
notice. In addition, failed to pay the required Predictability Pay
to employees whose work schedules it changed with less than
14-days' notice, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Westchester, IL, The Grove operates various food
service establishment locations throughout Philadelphia and
Pennsylvania, in addition to locations in 8 other states across the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3679
E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
- and -
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
705 8th St SE #100
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
GUGGENHEIM FUNDS: $18.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JB AND MARGARET BLAUGRUND FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GUGGENHEIM FUNDS INVESTMENT ADVISORS,
LLC, RANDALL C. BARNES, ANGELA BROCK-
KYLE, THOMAS F. LYDON, JR., RONALD A.
NYBERG, SANDRA G. SPONEM, RONALD E.
TOUPIN, JR., and AMY J. LEE,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2021-1094-NAC
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING,
AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All holders of common shares of Fiduciary/Claymore Energy
Infrastructure Fund ("FMO") common stock as of the closing of the
merger of FMO with Kayne Anderson Energy Infrastructure Fund
("KYN") on March 7, 2022 (the "Merger") (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in
this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary
Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release dated March 29,
2024 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class defined above.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Plaintiff JB and Margaret Blaugrund
Foundation ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the other members
of the Settlement Class; and (ii) Defendants Guggenheim Funds
Investment Advisors, LLC, Randall C. Barnes, Angela Brock-Kyle,
Thomas F. Lydon, Jr., Ronald A. Nyberg, Sandra G. Sponem, Ronald E.
Toupin, Jr., and Amy J. Lee (collectively, "Defendants"; Plaintiff
and Defendants together, the "Parties") have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $18,800,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve
all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on July 9, 2024,
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Nathan A. Cook, Vice Chancellor,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North
King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by telephone or
videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other
things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Settlement
Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel—Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP and Morris Kandinov LLP—have adequately represented
the Settlement Class, and whether Plaintiff should be finally
appointed as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and
Plaintiff's Counsel should be finally appointed as Class Counsel
for the Settlement Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to
Plaintiff and the other members of the Settlement Class and in
their best interests; (iv) determine whether the proposed Order and
Final Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with
prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation
should be entered; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and
should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether and in what
amount any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff's
Counsel (the "Fee and Expense Award") should be paid out of the
Settlement Fund, including any incentive award for Plaintiff (the
"Incentive Award"); (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, including Plaintiff's
application for an Incentive Award; and (viii) consider any other
matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection
with the Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date, time, or format of the hearing or updates regarding
remote or in-person appearances at the hearing, will be posted to
the Settlement website, www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator by mail at FMO Stockholders
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91400, Seattle,
WA 98111; by telephone at 855-208-4128; or by email at
info@FMOStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also
be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the
Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the
Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount
of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares
held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail
in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from
the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in
the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Merger
consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim
form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
including Plaintiff's application for an Incentive Award, must be
filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June
24, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
FMO Stockholders Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91400
Seattle, WA 98111
855-208-4128
info@FMOStockholdersLitigation.com
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Jeroen van Kwawegen
Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
800‑380‑8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
Aaron T. Morris
Morris Kandinov LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-431-7473
aaron@moka.law
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GUGGENHEIM FUNDS: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set July 9
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JB AND MARGARET BLAUGRUND FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GUGGENHEIM FUNDS INVESTMENT ADVISORS,
LLC, RANDALL C. BARNES, ANGELA BROCK-
KYLE, THOMAS F. LYDON, JR., RONALD A.
NYBERG, SANDRA G. SPONEM, RONALD E.
TOUPIN, JR., and AMY J. LEE,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2021-1094-NAC
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING,
AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All holders of common shares of Fiduciary/Claymore Energy
Infrastructure Fund ("FMO") common stock as of the closing of the
merger of FMO with Kayne Anderson Energy Infrastructure Fund
("KYN") on March 7, 2022 (the "Merger") (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in
this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary
Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release dated March 29,
2024 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class defined above.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Plaintiff JB and Margaret Blaugrund
Foundation ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the other members
of the Settlement Class; and (ii) Defendants Guggenheim Funds
Investment Advisors, LLC, Randall C. Barnes, Angela Brock-Kyle,
Thomas F. Lydon, Jr., Ronald A. Nyberg, Sandra G. Sponem, Ronald E.
Toupin, Jr., and Amy J. Lee (collectively, "Defendants"; Plaintiff
and Defendants together, the "Parties") have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $18,800,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve
all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on July 9, 2024,
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Nathan A. Cook, Vice Chancellor,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North
King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by telephone or
videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other
things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Settlement
Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP and Morris Kandinov LLP -- have adequately
represented the Settlement Class, and whether Plaintiff should be
finally appointed as Class Representative for the Settlement Class
and Plaintiff's Counsel should be finally appointed as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to Plaintiff and the other members of the Settlement Class
and in their best interests; (iv) determine whether the proposed
Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the
Action with prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the
Stipulation should be entered; (v) determine whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine
whether and in what amount any award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to Plaintiff's Counsel (the "Fee and Expense Award")
should be paid out of the Settlement Fund, including any incentive
award for Plaintiff (the "Incentive Award"); (vii) hear and rule on
any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, including
Plaintiff's application for an Incentive Award; and (viii) consider
any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date, time, or format of the hearing or updates regarding
remote or in-person appearances at the hearing, will be posted to
the Settlement website, www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator by mail at FMO Stockholders
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91400, Seattle,
WA 98111; by telephone at 855-208-4128; or by email at
info@FMOStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also
be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the
Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the
Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount
of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares
held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail
in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from
the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in
the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Merger
consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim
form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
including Plaintiff's application for an Incentive Award, must be
filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June
24, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
FMO Stockholders Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91400
Seattle, WA 98111
855-208-4128
info@FMOStockholdersLitigation.com
www.FMOStockholdersLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Jeroen van Kwawegen
Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
800‑380‑8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
Aaron T. Morris
Morris Kandinov LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-431-7473
aaron@moka.law
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE [GN]
HAMMITT INC: Lewis Sues Over Breaches of Caller ID Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAMMITT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-007287 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., May 23,
2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
Defendant's violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
Allegedly, Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted
Hammitt and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the
recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that
was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the suit.
Hammitt, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells handbags, backpacks,
and leather accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866)893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
HONEYGROW LLC: Violates Workweek Employment Standards, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Steigerwalt a/k/a LUCAS REYES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. HONEYGROW, LLC; and HONEYGROW
RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION, LP, Case No. 240503422 (Pa. Com. Pl.,
Philadelphia Cty., May 29, 2024) is class action lawsuit against
Honeygrow under the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment
Standards.
According to the complaint, Honeygrow violated the Plaintiff's and
other employees' rights under the Fair Workweek Law in several
ways.
Namely, Honeygrow failed to:
(1) provide a good faith estimate to each new employee;
(2) provide covered employees with their work schedule no
later than 14 days before the first day of any new
schedule;
(3) provide employees with Predictability Pay when changing
their work schedules with less than 14-days’ notice;
(4) offer work shifts to existing employees fore hiring new
employees; and
(5) provide employees with compensatory pay when scheduling
them for a shift to begin sooner than nine hours after
their previous shift began.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly employee at
Honeygrow, located at 15 South 11th Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Honeygrow operates various food service establishment locations
throughout Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, in addition to locations
in 6 other states across the United States. Specifically, Honeygrow
operates 43 locations nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
Samuel H. Datlof, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3679
E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
sdatlof@wwdlaw.com
- and -
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
705 8th St SE No.1 100
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
HSNI LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA LOBELLO,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HSNi,
LLC, a limited liability corporation, Case No.
8:24-cv-00026-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting a 14-day extension of time to respond to
the Plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional collective
certification and court-authorized notice to Potential Opt-in
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Certification Motion,
seeking conditional collective certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The deadline for Defendant's response is currently
June 3, 2024.
The Defendant requires additional time to thoroughly consider the
allegations and legal arguments presented in the Certification
Motion. The Defendant is engaged in a detailed internal company
review to collect necessary documents, information, and witness
statements, including assessing the need for and potentially
securing declarations from similarly situated employees.
HSNI operates as a interactive multichannel retailer.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b4UNeM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cullan E. Jones, Esq.
Christopher C. Johnson, Esq.
Madonna M. Snowden, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2500
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 261-7810
Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
E-mail: cjones@fordharrison.com
cjohnson@fordharrison.com
msnowden@fordharrison.com
HUISH OUTDOORS: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUISH OUTDOORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04029 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.atomicaquatics.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
HUISH OUTDOORS LLC distributes outdoor sporting equipment. The
Company owns a portfolio of outdoor products companies. Huish
Outdoors provides sporting goods to the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb
Dana L. Gottlieb (
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212)982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Faces Jones Suit Over Resignation Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JONES, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., v. HUNTINGTON
INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2024-0547 (Del. Ch., May 23,
2024) is a verified class action complaint seeking declaratory
relief invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective Nov. 2, 2022 (the
"Bylaws").
The lawsuit alleges that the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders'
exclusive right to select the members of the Board. The Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement is contrary to 8 Del. C. sections 141(k),
211 and 141(b). The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also
impermissibly subverts the stockholder Franchise, the lawsuit
says.
Furthermore, absent the requested relief, the Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with
stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the
Company's directors. Adjudication of this matter is thus essential
to protect the stockholder franchise. The Irrevocable Resignation
Requirement unduly restricts the stockholder franchise, is
inequitable, and violates Delaware law, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to
Court of Chancery Rule 23, on behalf of himself and all other
Company public stockholders except the Defendant and any current
director or officer of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been, a Company stockholder
since at least October 2023.
Huntington is a global, all-domain defense provider and military
shipbuilder.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Nathan Abelman, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Read Sues Over Motor Vehicle's False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR READ; KEVIN NEU; and AMIT JAIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01123 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant made false advertisement on its motor
vehicle Nexo.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Hyundai fails to
disclose and actively conceals prior to and during the sale of the
Nexo that hydrogen fuel actually may not be available for days at a
time. Hyundai also fails to disclose and actively conceals that
every hydrogen refuel takes hours on average, hydrogen fuel pumps
often freeze up and lock onto the Nexo, and the car is locked into
to the fueling station until an offsite technician arrives, says
the suit.
Hyundai Motor America manufactures and retails automobiles. The
Company offers compacts, sedans, hybrids, crossovers, passenger
cars, spare parts, tools, and equipment, including maintenance,
repair, and auto finance. Hyundai Motor America serves customers
throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Ingber, Esq.
THE INGBER LAW GROUP
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (310) 270-0089
E-mail: ji@jasoningber.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Winkelvoss et al. Sue Over Unlawful Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WINKELVOSS, SETH PURVIN, DOUGLAS BUTTS and ADITYA GUPTA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01113 (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2024) seeks
to remedy Defendants' violations of law in connection with
Defendants' unlawful collection and dissemination of Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' vehicle driving data through the telematics
system in their vehicles.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for intrusion upon seclusion, unjust
enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business
Law, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons in the United States
who purchased or leased a vehicle from Hyundai and had their
location data provided to Verisk. As a result of Defendants'
misconduct, Plaintiffs and the other Class Members were each
injured on account of their vehicle location being shared with
third parties, including, but not limited to, the insurance
companies that provide them insurance and/or other insurance
companies where Plaintiffs and the other Class Members applied for
insurance.
Headquartered in Fountain Valley, CA, Hyundai Motor America is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Hyundai Motor Company, a
multinational automotive manufacturer based in South Korea. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Christopher Stiner, Esq.
Deborah De Villa, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505-4521
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-85
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Court Certifies Action for Settlement Purposes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE iANTHUS CAPITAL
HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No: 1:20-cv-03513-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Kaplan entered an order
certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as
a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the "Settlement Class"
consisting of:
"all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
iAnthus securities between May 14, 2018 and July 10, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), pursuant to
domestic transactions, and were allegedly damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants, (ii)
current and former officers and directors of iAnthus and GGP;
(iii) members of the immediate family of each of the Individual
Defendants; (iv) all subsidiaries and affiliates of iAnthus and
GGP and the directors and officers of iAnthus, GGP, and their
respective subsidiaries or affiliates; (v) all persons, firms,
trusts, corporations, officers, directors, and any other
individual or entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
interest; (vi) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of all such excluded
parties; and (vii) the person listed on Exhibit 1 hereto, who
is
excluded from the Settlement Class pursuant to request.
Adequacy of Representation - Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of the Settlement
only, the Court hereby certifies Lead Plaintiff as class
representative for the Settlement Class and appointing Lead Counsel
as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class
both in terms of litigating the Litigation and for purposes of
entering into and
implementing the Settlement and have satisfied the requirements of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and 23(g), respectively.
Final Settlement Approval and Dismissal of Claims - Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court hereby approves the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation.
Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 825,000,
and expenses in the amount of 116,615.44.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xfq0PF at no extra
charge.[CC]
INDUSTRIAL PAINTING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Baker Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY BETH BAKER, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDUSTRIAL PAINTING LIMITED, INC.,
d/b/a IPL INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00645
(M.D. Tenn., May 23, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Baker and other similarly situated current and former
hourly-paid employees were required to report to work at least 15
minutes prior to the beginning of their shift without being
compensated for such "off the clock" time. However, they were not
paid for all their overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime
compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods, says the
Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Brighton, TN, Industrial Painting Limited, Inc.,
d/b/a IPL Industrial Services, is a Tennessee corporation that
provides contract services for Dupont, Clemours and other chemical
companies in Tennessee, Mississippi and other Southeastern States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood @jsyc.com
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: Newman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Conference Management, Inc. The case is styled as Edward G. Newman,
Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
International Conference Management, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00564-RP (W.D. Tex., May 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
International Conference Management (ICM) -- https://icm-med.com/
-- is a premier national convention and trade show producer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED
539 W. Commerce St., Ste. 1899
Dallas, TX 75208
Phone: (972) 767-9099
Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com
JDBN LLC: Faces Utomo Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
WILLY UTOMO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
JDBN LLC d/b/a DOMODOMO, JAE HYUN PARK, and BRIAN KIM, Case No.
1:24-cv-04000 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) seeks first claim for relief
as a collective action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act Section
16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of service employees
employed by Defendants at Domodomo on or after the date that is
three years before the filing of the Original Complaint.
The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have
been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to
Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs,
practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully
failing and refusing to pay them proper overtime pay. The claims of
Plaintiff stated herein are essentially the same as those of the
other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, says the suit.
JDBN is a New York corporation that owns and operates Domodomo
sushi restaurant in Manhattan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Michael DiGiulio, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
JIFFY LUBE: Court Certifies Class in Fuentes Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR FUENTES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JIFFY LUBE INT'L, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-05174-AB (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Anita Brody entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and final approval of the
Settlement.
The Court also grants Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and incentive award to the class
representative.
Accordingly, the Court also approves Plaintiffs' requests for
$500,000 as an award of attorneys' fees, $320,465 in litigation
expenses, and $68,132 for settlement administration expenses.
The Plaintiff Victor Fuentes, on behalf of himself and the putative
class members he seeks to represent, has negotiated and agreed to a
Settlement Agreement with Defendant Jiffy Lube International, Inc.
The parties define the Settlement Class as follows:
"All persons in the United States who between Dec. 1, 2014 and
Dec. 31, 2018 (i) worked as hourly employees; (ii) of a Jiffy
Lube Franchisee located in the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
MSA; and (iii) worked for a period of at least 90 days."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Jiffy Lube and its
principals, affiliated entities, legal representatives,
successors, and assigns; (b) any Person who files a valid,
timely
Request for Exclusion; (c) federal, state, and local
governments
(including all agencies and subdivisions thereof); and (d) any
Person who settled and released claims at issue in this
Action.
Jiffy Lube provides lubrication, oil change, and light repair
services for cars and light trucks.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DKLrDU at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHN CARNEY: Parties in Gibbs Must Submit Joint Status Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gibbs, et al., v. Carney,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01301 (D. Del., Filed Sept. 28, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Stephanos Bibas entered an order directing the parties
to confer and submit a joint status report.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.
KATE SPADE NEW YORK: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kate Spade New York, Case No. 0:24-cv-01960 (D. Minn.,
May 24, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.katespade.com) (the
"Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and
its implementing regulations.
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, handbags, wallets, shoes, jewelry, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
KEENA STAFFING: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Rosevear Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ROSEVEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEENA STAFFING, Case No. 1:24-cv-00705-AMN-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., May 23, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
safeguard and secure the personally identifiable information of
data breach victims, including the Plaintiff.
The information affected was provided by Keena's employees and
client organizations, including the Plaintiff's former employer DAX
Powersports. Keena has maintained this sensitive PII in its
possession for the purpose of its staffing and payroll business.
The disclosed information includes names, Social Security numbers,
bank account and other financial information, dates of birth, and
home addresses, the lawsuit says.
As a result of the Defendant's negligence, prior to May 20, 2024,
cybercriminals were able to gain access to the Defendant's data
records and access this sensitive and valuable PII, the lawsuit
asserts.
On May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff received a notice through Keena's
web portal for employees that her direct deposit information had
been changed.
On May 21, 2024, immediately after being informed of the Data
Breach, the Plaintiff reviewed her information on the Keena portal
and learned that her direct deposit information had been changed to
route her remaining pay to Sutton Bank in Ohio, a bank with which
Plaintiff has no accounts and no relationship. This direct attempt
at fraud and identity theft has caused the Plaintiff significant
anxiety and has required her to expend considerable time and effort
dealing with the fallout of the Data Breach. This has included
closing two bank accounts and placing a credit freeze on her
financial accounts, causing significant stress and disruption to
the Plaintiff's life.
On May 22, 2024, the Plaintiff learned through a DAX Powersports
employee that the Data Breach occurred through Keena.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs,
and injunctive relief, including improvements to the Defendant's
data security system, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class Members,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized
by law.
Ms. Rosevear was required to provide her PII, or to allow her PII
to be provided, to Keena as a condition of her employment with DAX
Powersports.
Keena provides staffing and payroll services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
KENS SPRAY: Gonzalez Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KENS SPRAY EQUIPMENT INC. D.B.A. ALLOY
PROCESSING, an Oregon corporation; PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., an
Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 24STCV13032
(Cal. Super., May 23, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages and
penalties under California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of eight hours per workday and/or in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
working overtime hours. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees received bonuses, including "Bonus Discry",
"Qcb Nondis", and/or other forms of pay that must be included in
the "regular rate" of pay. However, the Defendants have failed to
properly incorporate Incentive Pay in the Plaintiff's and other
on-exempt employees' "regular rate" of pay when calculating
overtime compensation, and thereby under-paid them overtime
compensation, the Plaintiff claims.
Additionally, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with all legally-compliant
meal periods. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees frequently worked on projects that could not be stopped
and later resumed once they were initiated, which caused the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees to shorten, skip, and/or
delay their meal periods until after the end of the fifth hour of
work. Furthermore, the Defendants also failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with a second meal period
of at least 30-minutes when they worked a shift in excess of 10.0
hours, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt "Shot
Peen Operator" from April 2022 until the present but has been on a
leave of absence since November 2023.
Kens manufactures parts for the aerospace industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
Alicia Flores, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
amcintosh@haineslawgroup.com
aflores@haineslawgroup.com
KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS: Boulter Files Suit in D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas
Onshore, LP. The case is styled as Mike Boulter, Boulter LLC, Ralph
Nix Produce, Inc., Barclay Farms, LLC, on behalf of themselves and
classes of similarly situated persons v. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas
Onshore, LP, Case No. 1:24-cv-01459-SKC (D. Colo., May 22, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
The Kerr-McGee Corporation, founded in 1929, was an American energy
company involved in oil exploration, production of crude oil,
natural gas, perchlorate and uranium mining and milling in various
countries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
BARTON & BURROWS, LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Phone: (913) 563-6250
Email: george@bartonburrows.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony N. Kaim, Esq.
Barrett H. Reasoner, Esq.
Shannon Nicole Smith
GIBBS & BRUNS LLP
1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 751-5249
Fax: (713) 750-0903
Email: akaim@gibbsbruns.com
breasoner@gibbsbruns.com
snsmith@gibbsbruns.com
- and -
Carlos R. Romo, Esq.
Ezekiel J. Williams, Esq.
Jacqueline F. Hyatt, Esq.
Mairead K. Dolan, Esq.
WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON PC
1801 California Street, Suite 3400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 228-2531
Fax: (303) 861-4017
Email: cromo@williamsweese.com
zwilliams@williamsweese.com
jhyatt@williamsweese.com
mdolan@williamsweese.com
KIMBERLITE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLITE CORPORATION; SONITROL
SECURITY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 24CV073959 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., May 2, 2024) arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of
the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class
Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all
wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight
time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all
meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which
they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during
their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon
termination of their employment, failed to provide them with
accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse them for
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Perez worked for the Defendants from approximately
January 2021 through approximately July 2021 as a dispatcher and
operator.
Kimberlite Corporation provides security services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
Barbara DuVan-Clarke, Esq.
Alexander K. Spellman, Esq.
P.J. Van Ert, Esq.
Annabel Blanchard, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 622-4278
Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
BDC@blackstonepc.com
aspellman@blackstonepc.com
pjvanert@blackstonepc.com
ablanchard@blackstonepc.com
KNOX COUNTY, IL: JBH Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Children
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B.H., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, by his next friend Debra
Medlock, v. KNOX COUNTY, CHIEF JUDGE RAYMOND A. CAVANAUGH of the
Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, BRIDGET E.. PLETZ, Director of Court
Services of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, and WENDI L. STECK,
Superintendent of the Mary Davis Home, Case No.
4:24-cv-04096-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and 23(b)(2) to certify a class of children who are currently, or
in the future will be, detained in the Mary Davis Detention Home
(the "Class").
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and the Class, including an order compelling the Defendants
to develop and implement a plan to remedy the conditions at the
Mary Davis Detention Home, which violate the rights of the
Plaintiff and the Class under the Eighth, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets all
requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Plaintiff's own
experiences at MDH are exemplary of the experiences of all youth
detained at the facility, making them typical of the claims and
defenses of the Class.
Knox County comprises the Galesburg, IL Micropolitan Statistical
Area.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ovWV51 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille E. Bennett, Esq.
Kevin M. Fee, Esq.
Samantha Reed, Esq.
Alexis Picard, Esq.
ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC.
150 N. Michigan, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 201-9740
Facsimile: (312) 288-5225
E-mail: cbennett@aclu-il.org
kfee@aclu-il.org
sreed@aclu-il.org
apicard@aclu-il.org
KORRES NATURAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Tarr Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN ELIZABETH TARR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Korres Natural Products USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03435 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
https://www.korres.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.
According to the complaint, Korres.com contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy,
hidden elements on the web page, inaccurate focus order, ambiguous
link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible
drop-down menus, inaccurate landmark structure, redundant links
where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Korres Natural Products' policies, practices, and procedures to
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Korres Natural Products USA, Inc. provides skincare and beauty
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Action Over 'No Preservatives' Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Action reports that Kraft Mac & Cheese class
action filed over 'no preservatives' label.
Who: Plaintiff Cecil Brinker filed a class action lawsuit against
The Kraft Heinz Co.
Why: Kraft labels its Mac & Cheese products as having no artificial
flavors, preservatives or dyes despite containing citric acid, the
lawsuit says.
Where: The case was moved to federal court in Missouri from St.
Louis state court.
A Missouri consumer has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
Kraft Mac & Cheese is falsely labeled as containing "no
preservatives" because the product contains citric acid.
While citric acid occurs naturally in fruit, the variety used in
Kraft Mac & Cheese serves as a preservative, the lawsuit says. This
alleged false labeling is in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.
"Citric acid, while non-toxic and permitted as an additive, is
indisputably a synthetic preservative, being categorized as such by
essentially every single government, scientific and academic
institution considering the question," the Kraft mac and cheese
class action lawsuit says.
Mac & Cheese class action targets five products
The class action lawsuit targets five Mac & Cheese products:
original flavor, spirals, three cheese, value size and thick 'n
creamy.
Brinker says she would not have made the purchases had she known
the statements on the front of the box were incorrect.
"Average and reasonable consumers such as plaintiff do not read the
fine print on the rear side or side of the package when purchasing
the products," the Kraft Mac & Cheese class action says. "Moreover,
although it is well-established scientifically (and in the various
other manners set forth infra), the reasonable consumer does not
recognize citric acid as a preservative."
Even if a consumer knew that citric acid is a preservative, the
Kraft class action lawsuit says the average consumer takes less
than 20 seconds to make any individual purchasing decision in a
store, meaning only the front label is generally read in that
amount of time.
An Illinois federal judge trimmed a class action lawsuit filed
against The Kraft Heinz Co. in January 2023 alleging it allows
dangerous toxins in its popular macaroni and cheese products
The plaintiff is represented by Daniel F. Harvath of the Harvath
Law Group LLC.
The Kraft class action lawsuit is Brinker v. The Kraft Heinz Food
Co., Case No. 4:24-cv-00704-MTS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division. [GN]
KRAFT HEINZ: Hortin Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cori Hortin and Valerie Morrison, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. '24CV0909 BEN DBC was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on May 23, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00909-BEN-SBC.
The Plaintiffs allege that certain varieties of Kraft Heinz's
Lunchables products contain high concentrations of lead, cadmium,
and phthalates. They allege that Kraft Heinz's failure to disclose
the alleged presence of these substances in Lunchables renders them
mislabeled. Based on those allegations, Plaintiffs assert three
causes of action against Kraft Heinz for: violations of the Unfair
Competition Law; violations of the False Advertising Law; and
unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
Madeline P. Skitzki, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
Phone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
Email: kspelman@jenner.com
asmith@jenner.com
mskitzki@jenner.com
L'OREAL USA: Abednego Sues Over High Levels of Benzene
------------------------------------------------------
Latifah Abednego, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., (S.D.N.Y, May 24, 2024),
is brought regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution,
advertising, marketing, and sale of CeraVe branded benzoyl peroxide
("BPO") acne treatment products (the "BPO Products") that contain
dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that
has been linked to leukemia and other cancers.
Prior to placing the BPO Products into the stream of commerce and
into the hands of consumers to use on their skin, Defendant knew or
should have known that the BPO Products contained benzene, but
misrepresented, omitted, and concealed this fact to consumers,
including Plaintiff and Class members, by not including benzene on
the BPO Products' labels or otherwise warning about its presence.
The Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendant's
representations that the BPO Products were safe, unadulterated, and
free of any carcinogens that are not listed on the label. The
Plaintiff and Class members purchased the BPO Products, which
contain harmful levels of benzene.
The BPO Products are worthless because they contain benzene, a
known human carcinogen that is an avoidable ingredient in the BPO
Products' manufacturing process. Indeed, the presence of benzene
renders the BPO Products adulterated, misbranded, and illegal to
sell. Defendant is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Class members
for misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose or warn that the BPO
Products contain benzene or degrade and form benzene over a short
period of time, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's BPO Products.
The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes the BPO Products at
issue in Florida, New York, and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen Sukert, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Donald E. Ecklund, Esq.
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
jalperstein@carelleabyrne.com
decklund@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
LABOR SOURCE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 22
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES COX, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC
d/b/a ONE SOURCE LABOR & STAFFING, Case No. 2:22-cv-02420-JAR-ADM
(D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered a Phase II
Scheduling Order as follows:
Event Deadline/Setting
Motions to amend the pleadings: June 30, 2024
Motion for Rule 23 class certification: Nov. 22, 2024
Plaintiff experts disclosed: March 7, 2025
All fact discovery completed: March 31, 2025
Defendant experts disclosed: April 4, 2025
Expert discovery completed: April 25, 2025
Proposed pretrial order due: May 5, 2025
Pretrial conference: May 15, 2025
Motion to decertify the conditionally June 6, 2025
certified FLSA class:
Potentially dispositive motions (e.g., June 6, 2025
summary judgment):
Labor Source provides staffing resources on-demand and site as
quickly as possible.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EbYxGw at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAWN CARE: Haga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Gage Haga, individually, and on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. LAWN CARE AND MORE, INC. and JOHN C.
BUSHONG, Individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-00086 (E.D. Ten., May 21,
2024), is brought against Defendants as a multi-plaintiff action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and other
similarly situated current and former hourly-paid lawn crew
members.
The Plaintiff alleges he and similarly situated lawn care members
performed overtime hours within weekly pay periods during all times
material to this cause of action without being paid for such
overtime at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of
pay. The Defendants had a time keeping system in which the work
hours of Plaintiff and those similarly situated were to be
recorded. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more
than 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods for Defendants
without being paid one and one-half times their regular hourly
rates of pay for all such overtime hours--during all times material
to this lawsuit, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid lawn
crew member.
Lawn Care and More, Inc. provides lawn services to homes and
businesses in and around Kingsport, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
LEE'S HOUSE: Lin Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIN HUI LIN, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LEE'S HOUSE
RESTAURANT, INC., SEN LIN, BAIQUN LIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-03111-MMB
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Baylson entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.
In so denying, the Court notes that "denial at the conditional
certification stage is not necessarily a final determination of
whether the matter may proceed as a collective action," as
certification may be "revisited after discovery or efforts by the
named plaintiff to re-define the contours of the proposed
collective action." An appropriate order follows.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a collective action of "all
nonexempt current and former employees of the Defendants who
performed work as nonexempt, non-managerial employees from Aug. 12,
2020 to present."
The Plaintiff alleges that he worked twelve or more hours per day,
six days per week. The Plaintiff further alleges that he was paid a
flat, monthly compensation, which increased marginally each year.
The Plaintiff filed this Complaint on Aug. 12, 2023, bringing
minimum wage and overtime claims under (1) the FLSA, (2) the PMWA,
and (3) the WPCL.
From December 2021 through January 2023, the Plaintiff Min Hui Lin
was a "Delivery Driver" for the Defendant, Lee's House Restaurant.
Lee's House offers traditional, delicious Asian cuisine.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aWyJ6Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEWIS BROTHERS: Grutzius Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA GRUTZIUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00089-MPB-CSW (S.D. Ind., May 23, 2024) seeks to
redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect
the personal identifiable information of likely thousands of
individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's
network in violation of its legal obligations and asserts claims
for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of
implied contract, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty,
and declaratory judgment.
Between March 25, 2024 and April 1, 2024, an unknown actor gained
access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems. As a
result, approximately 13,501 individuals, including Plaintiff and
the Class Members have had their PII exposed. Defendant negligently
delayed in responding the data breach and in informing Plaintiff
and the Class Members of the data breach. The Defendant did not
send out notices of the breach until May 9, 2024, says the suit.
Lewis Brothers Bakeries, Inc. is an Indiana-based bakery with
locations throughout Indiana and one location in Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
LI AUTO: Chaudhary Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
SAQIB CHAUDHARY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LI AUTO INC.; XIANG LI; TIE LI; and DONGHUI
MA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03725 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2024) is
a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Li Auto securities, including
purchasers of options and sales of options between February 26,
2024 and May 20, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendant's violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) Li Auto had overstated the demand
for its vehicles and the efficacy of its operating strategy in
launching the Li MEGA; (ii) accordingly, the Company was unlikely
to meet its Q1 2024 vehicle deliveries estimate; (iii) the
foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's financial condition; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times, says the suit.
The price of Li Auto's ADS price fell $3.18 per ADS, or 12.77
percent, to close at $21.71 per ADS on May 20, 2024. As a result of
the 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.
LI AUTO INC. manufactures automobiles. The Company designs,
develops, and sells smart new energy electric sport utility
vehicles. [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
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
LINCARE INC: Morris Loses Bid to File Class Cert Exhibit Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET MORRIS, v. LINCARE,
INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion to file exhibit in support of motion for class
certification under seal.
The Clerk is directed to electronically remove the proposed sealed
item at Doc. 124-1. To the extent that Plaintiff wishes the Court
to consider the exhibit in conjunction with her upcoming Motion for
Class Certification, the Plaintiff should appropriately redact the
area codes from the documents so that only the last four digits of
the telephone numbers are contained in the exhibit before
re-filing.
Thus, Plaintiff's request to file the exhibit under seal lacks good
cause and is due to be denied because less onerous means may be
employed to protect the information the parties assert should be
protected from disclosure.
Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services
for patients in the home.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hcH8vs at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Excessively High Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Molly Bohannon of Forbes reports that a New York ticket buyer filed
a proposed class action suit against Ticketmaster and its parent
company Live Nation on May 23, alleging consumers are forced to pay
high prices because the company has used its market power to charge
"excessively high fees" -- a suit that came the same day the U.S.
government sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation for similar antitrust
issues.
Abraham Leifer, the plaintiff in the case, alleges all consumers of
tickets at major concert venues are impacted by Live Nation's
monopoly, which has been in place since it purchased Ticketmaster
in 2010.
The suit was filed on behalf of all consumers who have bought
tickets from resale sites after they were originally sold on
Ticketmaster, arguing Live Nation's alleged monopoly power has
pushed up prices in the "secondary" ticket sale market by limiting
competition among resale sites and passing on high fees.
The lawsuit was filed in Manhattan on the same day the Department
of Justice filed an antitrust suit against Live Nation, alleging
the company and its subsidiaries have used a number of tactics to
"eliminate competition and monopolize markets."
Forbes has reached out to Live Nation for comment.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010, promising the Justice
Department at the time it would not retaliate against venues that
work with other ticket sellers to ensure ticketing competition was
preserved and it didn't create a monopoly -- a deal the DOJ claimed
in 2019 the company had repeatedly violated. On Thursday, the DOJ
and 29 states sued Live Nation, saying the company had used things
like long-term ticket contracts and restrictions on venues working
with multiple ticketers as a way to monopolize the market,
something Attorney General Merrick Garland said resulted in fans
paying more and artists having fewer options of where to play. Live
Nation pushed back on the suit, saying in a statement it was
"absurd to claim" it and Ticketmaster were monopolies and arguing
"there is more competition than ever in the live events market." In
the statement, Live Nation blamed the rise in ticket costs on
increasing production costs, artist popularity and non-stop online
ticket scalping. Live Nation has also long criticized resale sites,
saying in a post last year over 70% of many of the sites' business
is professional resellers and that "both artists and consumers are
cheated" by the high resale prices on secondary sites.
TANGENT
Live Nation and Ticketmaster faced renewed criticism in 2022 after
Ticketmaster canceled the general sale of tickets for Taylor
Swift's record-breaking Eras Tour after its website crashed during
pre-sale. Live Nation President Joe Berchtold told lawmakers in a
hearing over the matter the issue with Swift's ticket sales was
caused by scalpers, an unprecedented amount of bots working to buy
tickets and a "cyberattack." [GN]
LIVE NATION: Faces Steves Suit Over Free Market Competition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster
L.L.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-04106 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2024) seeks
treble damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants' violations
of the Sherman Antitrust Act to remedy the effects of the
Defendants' past unlawful conduct, to protect free market
competition from continued unlawful manipulation, and to remedy
harm to consumers and competitors alike.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members are
forced to pay supracompetitive prices for tickets to concerts and
events in the Relevant Market, the secondary ticketing services for
major concert venues in the United States. The Plaintiff and Class
members pay supracompetitive prices because Ticketmaster levies
excessively high fees in the primary market on tickets that it
sells, which are then passed down to consumers in the secondary
market.
Additionally, consumers pay higher prices for tickets in the
Relevant Market that originated from Ticketmaster because
Ticketmaster inflates the face-values of tickets. Here too, these
supracompetitive prices are passed down to consumers each time a
ticket resells in the Relevant Market. Further, because
Ticketmaster interferes with Secondary Ticket Exchanges' ability to
transact in tickets originally purchased from Ticketmaster, there
are few Secondary Ticket Exchanges operating in the Relevant
Market, enabling those that are doing so to impose supracompetitive
prices when tickets are resold. Absent Ticketmaster's
anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members would have
paid significantly lower prices in the Relevant Market, says the
suit.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is an American multinational
entertainment company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Serina M. Vash, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
153 Central Avenue No. 131
Westfield, New Jersey 07090
E-mail: svash@hermanjones.com
- and -
John C. Herman, Esq.
3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 504-6500
Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com
LIVE NATION: Leifer Sues Over Anticompetitive Ticket Sale Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM LEIFER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and
TICKETMASTER L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03994 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 23, 2024) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other available
relief pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
and various state antitrust laws.
Allegedly, Plaintiff and Class members are forced to pay
supracompetitive prices for tickets to concerts and events in the
relevant market as the Ticketmaster levies excessively high fees in
the primary market on tickets that it sells, which are then passed
down to consumers in the secondary market. Additionally, consumers
pay higher prices for tickets in the relevant market that
originated from Ticketmaster because Ticketmaster inflates the
face-values of tickets. Among other things, Ticketmaster has
allegedly used anticompetitive technological restraints by
consumers' mobile phone technology in order to block the ability to
transfer tickets instantly to secondary market purchasers not using
Ticketmaster's platform, as well as misusing supposed copyright
protections to purport to invalidate tickets transferred outside of
Ticketmaster's secondary market platform.
Through these unlawful and anticompetitive restraints, Ticketmaster
is able to deter most secondary ticketing agents from transacting
with primary purchasers who bought from Ticketmaster, and to deter
many would-be secondary ticketing agents from entering the market
at all, in each case shrinking the number of secondary ticketing
agents on the relevant market dramatically, says the suit.
Headquartered in Beverly Hills, CA, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
is a live entertainment company that wholly owns Ticketmaster.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Israel David, Esq.
Adam M. Harris, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 739-0622
E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com
adam.harris@davidllc.com
- and -
Mark A. Cianci, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 295-7770
E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com
- and -
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
xanb@rgrdlaw.com
ashingler@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
LOANDEPOT INC: Ryan Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-03630 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, injunctive/declaratory relief, and violations of
the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Customer
Records Act, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Between January 8, 2024 and January 22, 2024, loanDepot announced a
security incident during which unauthorized parties gained access
to sensitive personal information of approximately 16.6 million
individuals in its systems.
Armed with the personal identifying information from the records,
hackers can sell the PII to other thieves or misuse themselves to
commit a variety of crimes that harm victims of the data breach.
For instance, they can take out loans, mortgage property, open
financial accounts, and open credit cards in a victim's name; use a
victim's information to obtain government benefits or file
fraudulent returns to obtain a tax refund; obtain a driver's
license or identification card in a victim's name; gain employment
in another person's name; or give false information to police
during an arrest, says the suit.
As a result of Defendant's willful failure to prevent the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and Class members are more susceptible to
identity theft and have experienced, will continue to experience,
and face an increased risk of financial harms, in that they are at
substantial risk of identity theft, fraud, and other harm, the suit
alleges.
loanDepot, Inc. is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding
company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
6057 Metropolitan Plz.
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: (314) 662-2836
E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
- and -
Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
768 Plandome Road
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (516) 426-6870
E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com
LOCUST MEDICAL: Jackson Loses Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARD JACKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LOCUST MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00424-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order:
1. Plaintiff Gerard Jackson's motion to amend complaint is
denied,
and;
2. Plaintiff Gerard Jackson's motion to certify class is denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IaCoP7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MACLEAN POWER: Hodges Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maclean Power, LLC.
The case is styled as Christopher Hodges, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Maclean Power, LLC,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0006002 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., May 21, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
MacLean Power, LLC, doing business as MacLean Power Systems --
https://www.macleanpower.com/ -- manufactures utility
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan E. Ross, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP PC
1801 Century Park E., Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-237-3890
Email: megan@melmedlaw.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 25
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LENA JAMIL, et al., v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08130-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving
joint
stipulation to extend scheduling order deadlines as follows:
1. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 20, 2024
2. Last Date to file a Motion Sept. 25, 2024
for Class Certification:
3. Last Date to file an Opposition Nov. 15, 2024
to the Motion:
4. Last Date to file a Reply in Dec. 20, 2024
support of the Motion:
5. Hearing on the Motion: Jan. 31, 2025
Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars
in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=269e26 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERCURY MISSION: Burton Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Armida Burton, and all other similarly situated
v. MERCURY MISSION SYSTEMS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV02628 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04260.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action
against Defendants: unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime; unpaid
meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; wages not timely
paid during employment; failure to provide accurate wage
statements; untimely final wages; failure to reimburse necessary
business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Derek R. Havel, Esq.
Tyler J. Johnson, Esq.
Chenxi Lu, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Phone: 213.620.1780
Facsimile: 213.620.1398
Email dhavel@sheppardmullin.com
tjjohnson@sheppardmullin.com
ablu@sheppardmullin.com
META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Temporarily Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Advertiser Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
administrative motion to file under temporary seal the unredacted
versions of Advertiser Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion, Motion for
Class Certification, and Memorandum in Support, as well as Exhibits
1-15 to the Lawrence Declaration in their entirety, and Exhibit A
to the Williams Declaration in its entirety.
The Advertiser Plaintiffs file these documents under temporary seal
solely because they contain information designated Confidential or
Highly Confidential under the Protective Order, not because
Advertiser Plaintiffs believe they meet the sealing standard.
Pursuant to the Court's Order, the reasons for sealing will be
discussed in a forthcoming omnibus sealing motion. The Advertiser
Plaintiffs also provide notice of lodging to all parties and their
counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).
Meta owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=La22hO at no extra
charge.[CC]
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
Adam Ernette, Esq.
Priscilla Ghita, Esq.
Chang Hahn, Esq.
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
Andrew M. Williamson, Esq.
Allison Watson Cross, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (332) 322-8835
E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
aernette@bathaeedunne.com
pghita@bathaeedunne.com
chahn@bathaeedunne.com
bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
awilliamson@bathaeedunne.com
across@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Henry J. Kelson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3997
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com
acohen@lfsblaw.com
METHODIST HEALTHCARE: Faces Wilson Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd.,
L.L.P., Case No. 5:24-cv-00584 (W.D. Tex., May 29, 2024) is a civil
action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.
The Plaintiff contends that she and the Collective Action Members
worked as hourly-paid direct patient care workers for Defendant.
The Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages
available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages,
legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about April 13,
2020 and is still a current employee.
Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd. is a health care
provider in South Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, 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
MEXICO LINDO: Pedraza Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA PEDRAZA, FABIOLA HERNANDEZ, MARGARITA GARCIA, KAREN
ABARCA, AND YOHENIA GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEXICO LINDO DELIS & GROCERY LLC
(DBA MEXICO LINDO DELI) and OJILDIE HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05805 (D.N.J., May 2, 2024) arises from Defendants' various
willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed as preparers, customer service
representatives, waitresses and cooks for Defendants' restaurant in
New Jersey. They seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation under the federal and state laws.
Mexico Lindo Delis & Grocery LLC is a Mexican restaurant with a
principal place of business in Passaic, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
E-mail: LS@stillmanlegapc.com
MG JV: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages, Palcher Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Palcher, on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v.
MG JV, LLC dba Majordomo, a Delaware limited liability company; MG
JV F&B, LLC, a California limited liability company; Momo Orchard
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV12991 (Cal. Super., May 23, 2024) sues the
Defendants for failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the
Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked because the Defendants had
a policy and/or practice whereby they required and/or pressured the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to work while they were clocked
out for their meal periods.
The Defendants implemented other uniform policies and practices
resulting in off-the-clock work and underpayment of wages,
including requiring the Plaintiff and Aggrieved employees to don
and doff required work uniforms off-the-clock. The Defendants did
not pay wages to the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for this
time spent working off-the-clock despite the integral and
indispensable nature of the uniform requirement. Since some
Aggrieved Employees worked shifts equal to or in excess of 8 hour a
day or 40 hours a 2 week, some of this time should have been paid
at overtime rates but was not, the suit says.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay reporting time to employees
who were directed to show up prior to their or at the beginning of
their shift via phone or in person but not furnished with at least
half their usual or scheduled day's work. Accordingly, the
Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees for all hours worked because the Defendants' common
policy and practice failed to pay the Aggrieved Employees at least
minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code
sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. The Defendants also
failed to pay reporting time pay where applicable in violation of
Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 16 1197.1, and 1198, added the
suit.
Ms. Palcher was employed by the Defendants as a server, a part-time
nonexempt position, from August 2021 to Feb. 22, 2024.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
Julian Burns King, Esq.
Lawrence W. Beall, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 465-4802
Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
E-mail: elliot@kingsiegel.com
julian@kingsiegel.com
lawrence@kingsiegel.com
- and -
Bardia A. Akhavan, Esq.
AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 950
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (855) 463-4733
E-mail: bardia@baalaw.com
MILLENIUM HEALTH: Judge Denies Dismissal of Telemarketing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hurston, writing for VA Lawyers Weekly, reports that a lawsuit
alleging that a class of people listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry received more than 100 telemarketing calls has survived a
motion to dismiss after the Eastern District of Virginia found the
complaint plausibly asserted federal and state claims.
The defendant argued that the complaint relied on conclusory and
contradictory allegations to assert vicarious liability and failed
to establish its agency relationship with third parties who
generated leads and placed calls.
But U.S. District Judge Jamar K. Walker said the defendant
requested an inference that "would be absurd, and it is not
permitted by the law."
"More to the point, in arguing that the plaintiff only alleges
'Fuego, not [Millenium Health], had control over Infinix,' the
motion asks the Court to overlook the obvious factual link the
Amended Complaint alleges between Millennium Health and the calls
the plaintiff received: The pre-recorded message included a
call-back number that returned to a Millennium Health employee,"
the judge wrote.
Per the complaint, Look Both Ways Insurance, doing business as
Millennium Health, had an agreement under which Fuego Leads would
generate leads for new insurance customers and use third-party
marketing partners, such as Infinix Media, to dial telemarking
calls.
Thus, Infinix was authorized to place telemarketing calls that
would transfer recipients to Millenium, who controlled the content
of the calls and required Infinix to follow specific instructions.
Despite her phone number being listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry -- showing that she didn't consent to receive
telemarketing calls -- Laura Ackerman allegedly received more than
100 calls from Infinix designed to sell Millenium's health
insurance.
In her lawsuit against Millennium, Infinix and Fuego, Ackerman
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
TCPA, and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act, or VTPPA.
Millennium moved to dismiss.
Plausible allegations
The TCPA makes it unlawful to use an automatic dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice to make a non-emergency call to
send an unsolicited advertisement without the recipient's prior
express consent.
Walker found that Ackerman's complaint credibly claimed that
Millenium authorized pre-recorded voice calls be made without prior
express consent for the purpose of generating leads to sell
insurance to new customers.
Further, the judge said Ackerman "plausibly alleges that the
defendants made or caused to be made 'two or more telemarketing
calls within a 12-month period to the plaintiff' and to class
members" while their phone numbers were registered on the National
Do Not Call Registry.
Walker added that Ackerman plausibly alleged liability under the
VTPPA as well.
"Under the VTPPA, it is unlawful to 'initiate, or cause to be
initiated, a telephone solicitation call to a telephone number on
the National Do Not Call Registry,'" the judge explained.
Vicarious liability
Millennium asserted that Ackerman relied on "conclusory and
contradictory allegations" to assert vicarious liability for the
calls Infinix placed pursuant to its contract with Fuego.
According to Millenium, the complaint failed to establish its
agency relationship with Infinix with evidence that Millennium
manifested assent for Infinix to act on its behalf or had any
control over Infinix when the purported calls were made.
But Walker pointed out that Ackerman's complaint provided more
detail than Millenium acknowledged.
"Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that Millennium Health
'controlled the content of the telemarketing' Fuego and Infinix
conducted, by 'restricting the age of the individuals called [and]
the volume of leads it would accept in a day[,] requiring the call
centers to continue the call for a certain length of time before
they could get paid [and] restricting the days [and times] that the
call centers could call,'" the judge wrote.
By arguing that Ackerman only alleged Fuego had control over
Infinix, Walker said Millenium asked him to overlook the allegation
that the pre-recorded message included a call-back number that
returned to a Millennium employee.
"To conclude that this allegation is insufficient to sustain a
claim based on vicarious liability, the Court would have to infer
that Infinix sent customers to Millennium Health without Millennium
Health's knowledge or against Millennium Health's will," the judge
said. "Such an inference would be absurd, and it is not permitted
by the law."
Nor was Walker persuaded by Millenium's challenge to Ackerman's
standing based on her failure to plausibly suggest that Millennium
played any role in the calls.
"As framed, this portion of the motion depends on the Court
agreeing that the plaintiff fails to state a claim against
Millennium Health based on vicarious liability …," he said.
"Moreover, the Amended Complaint alleges that the plaintiff's
injury is not just fairly traceable to Millennium Health; it was --
quite literally -- traced to that company, when the plaintiff
called the number left in the pre-recorded message and a Millennium
Health employee answered the line."
Thus, the judge said Ackerman's injury would be redressed by an
award of damages against Millennium for the calls she plausibly
alleged were made at its direction and on its behalf. Millenium was
directed to file its answer to the complaint within two weeks. [GN]
MISS TOYAS: Johnson Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Candice Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Miss Toyas Creole House, LLC and Miskiri Hospitality Group, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02821-GLR (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as follows:
1. Conditionally certifying an FLSA collective of all
individuals
who worked for the Defendants as a server, bartender, or both
at
any point during the three (3) year period preceding the
filing
of this lawsuit, and who were paid a direct cash subminimum
hourly wage.
2. Authorizing the proposed Notice attached as Exhibit 3 to
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of this Motion, to be
issued
by first class mail; and the purposed Notice attached as
Exhibit
4 to be issued by e-mail and text message.
3. Authorizing a reminder notice attached as Exhibit 5 to all
individuals who have not yet opted-in to this matter within
40
days of the first notice mailing.
4. Authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to disseminate Court-approved
notice to the proposed collective members and allowing
putative
collective members 60 days from mailing of the Notice and
Consent Forms to return their signed Consent to Join Lawsuit
Form and opt-in to this action.
(5) Requiring the Defendants, within 14 days from the date of the
Court's Order granting this Motion, to provide an Excel file
(.xls) containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses,
phone
numbers, dates of employment, and position(s) held of all
putative collective members who work or worked for Defendants
as
bartenders or servers during the three year period preceding
the
filing of this lawsuit.
Miss Toya's offers authentic Creole food in Maryland.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DzeXmI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Hermann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
E-mail: drew@hermannlaw.com
pamela@hermannlaw.com
- and -
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
335 18th Pl. NE
Washinton, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Denial of Wallenstein Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WALLENSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia corporation, MONDELEZ
GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and NABISCO,
INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06033-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on Sept. 12, 2024, to
deny class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
The Defendants contend Claims alleging food mislabeling
historically have not been suitable for class certification and the
bases for those decisions are logical: consumers purchase food
products for numerous reasons that are highly individual and
largely have nothing to do with specific product labeling
statements.
As a result, in most cases it is impossible, or in any event too
unwieldy, for a plaintiff to prove issues like reliance, causation
and damages on a classwide basis. This Court and other courts in
the Ninth Circuit have determine as much. In this case, such
individualized questions are unavoidable and they overwhelm any
common questions that may exist. For these reasons, the Court
should conclude that class certification is inappropriate in this
litigation and grant the Defendants' motion to deny class
certification as to each of the proposed classes, the Defendants
add.
The Plaintiff claims to have been deceived by the labeling
statements on the packaging because Wheat Thins actually "contained
cornstarch, which is a refined grain" and, according to the
complaint, he did not know that cornstarch was not a whole grain.
Based on these allegations, the plaintiff asserts that he "lost
money and suffered injury in fact." Following the Court's dismissal
of the New York claims, the only remaining claims in the Complaint
are for: (1) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (the "CLRA"); and (2) breach of express warranty under
California law.
Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding,
beverage and snack food company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=evyukD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark C. Goodman, Esq.
Nancy Sims, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 576-3000
Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
E-mail: mark.goodman@bakermckenzie.com
nancy.sims@bakermckenzie.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Settles Compensation, Revenue Sharing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Collegiate Athletics Association, or NCAA, and its
"power conferences" -- the ACC, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and Big Ten --
reached a landmark settlement, May 23, in the House vs. NCAA case,
potentially allowing for college athletes to be compensated
directly by the NCAA.
The plaintiffs -- all current or former Division I athletes --
sought approximately $20 billion in back pay from the NCAA. This
sum, they argued, represents earnings they were denied prior to
2021, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Alston vs. NCAA
that student-athletes could profit from their name, image and
likeness because schools were doing the same. Following this
ruling, athletes could be compensated via endorsement deals.
By settling, the NCAA reduces its payout to around $2.8 billion.
Division I athletes from 2016 and later would be eligible for this
back-pay, which would be paid out across 10 years. The NCAA will
shoulder the lion's share of the cost. It would source this money
from its own reserves, as well as by reducing future broadcast
revenue distribution to each of its 10 conferences -- and thus, to
each individual school. The universities have been encouraged to
help shoulder the cost: each school can now opt in to disbursing up
to $20 million among current and former student-athletes.
Apart from securing compensation for many former athletes, the
ruling would also set a precedent of the NCAA and member schools
directly sharing revenue with future athletes. In effect, the NCAA
has ended its century-old practice of amateurism.
This is uncharted territory for college athletics. Revenue sharing
opens a Pandora's box of further complications: from widening
financial inequality between "power" and "non-power" conference
schools, to Title IX concerns and changes to roster size and
scholarship limits.
Campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof noted the settlement's potential
impact on Cal athletics.
"Today's settlement brings some clarity to a very complex and
uncertain situation," Mogulof said in a statement. "Given the
likelihood of this outcome, analytical work is already underway in
order to provide the campus and Cal Athletics with an assessment of
the agreement's impacts and implications." [GN]
NATIONAL MENTOR: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Papers
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAGANS et al v. NATIONAL
MENTOR HEALTHCARE, INC. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-00128-KMW-SAK
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Karen Williams entered an order granting
the Defendants request extending the time to file opposition papers
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
National Mentor provides behavioral health rehabilitation
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bb5Brt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Monica Nugent, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
700 East gate Drive, Suite 330
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-0015
Telephone: (856) 761-3421
Facsimile: (856) 761-1020
E-mail: nugentm@ballardspahr.com
NEW AGE LOUNGE: Faces FLSA Class Suit Over Tip Pooling Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMAINE VARONA, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, v. NEW AGE LOUNGE, INC., and
HEADQUARTERS NEW YORK, LLC, and SILK CORP. d/b/a HEADQUARTERS, and
JIMMY KIM, individually, and ROGER MAROLDA, individually, and NERIM
GJONBALAJ, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-04020 (S.D.N.Y., May 24,
2024) is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon
violations that the Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to her by:
(i) the tip pooling and tip retention provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act;
(ii) the tip pooling and tip retention provisions of the New York
Labor Law; and
(iii) New York common law, based on Defendants' conversion of
Plaintiff's gratuities.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- three legally distinct
entities that together operate as a single enterprise to run an
adult entertainment lounge located at 550-552 West 38th Street in
Manhattan, as well as three of the enterprise's owners and
day-to-day overseers -- as a dancer from early-December 2021 to
September 2023.
The Plaintiff says that throughout her employment, the Defendants
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of tips owed
to her, and instead retained, and/or distributed to Defendants’
managerial employees who were otherwise ineligible to receive tips,
up to fifty percent of Plaintiff's tips, in addition to the ten
percent of Plaintiff's tips that Defendants always retained for
themselves for alleged "operating costs, all in violation of the
FLSA and the NYLL, which further constitutes conversion under New
York common law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
10 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
NEW YORK BEACH: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Under NYLL, Ramones Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RAMONES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK BEACH CLUB, LTD., Case No. 2:24-cv-03739
(E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2024) seeks to recover damages for delinquent
wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and
who were employed at any time by the Defendant between Oct. 8, 2017
and the present in the State of New York, pursuant to New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has allegedly compensated
all its employees on a semi-monthly (twice per month) basis,
regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual laborers
under the NYLL. The Plaintiff typically performed physical tasks
for more than of 25% of his workday, as his responsibilities
included serving, bartending, arranging the dining areas, including
setting up and cleaning up tables, and other physical tasks that
necessitated he remain on his feet for the entirety of his shift.
Accordingly, every time the Plaintiff received late compensation
for the work he performed, he was by definition being underpaid by
the Defendant. Every time that Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other employees who worked in manual labor positions
their wages earned within seven days of the end of their workweeks,
Defendant deprived the employees of the use of money that belonged
to them, the lawsuit asserts.
By retaining these wages earned beyond the legally permitted
timeframe set by NYLL section 191, the Defendant benefitted from
the time value of the money at issue, and the free use of such
funds, at the expense of Plaintiff and putative class and
collective members. By willfully failing to pay employees in a
timely manner in compliance with applicable state law, the
Defendant has also violated the FLSA's implicit "prompt payment"
provision, added the lawsuit.
Mr. Ramones was employed by the Defendant in food service
capacities at Defendant's Atlantic Beach, New York establishment
from July 2020 through September 2021.
The Defendant is a private beach club.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
NEW YORK: Anderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
-----------------------------------------------------
FRANCESCA ANDERSON, SABRETHA ERVIN TURNER, SABRINA MORELL, JACOB
ABADARIKI, NADEEM ABBAS, MARLEEN ABDELMALAK, SHAKIRU ABIMBOLA,
AVROM ABRAMOV, ALLA ABRAMOVA, ALBANIA ABREU, LISA ADAMS, MULIKA
ADAMS, LUCY ADDUCI, ESTHER ADEBAYO, EMILY ADEGOR, SAKEEB ADEKUNLE,
OLAYODE ADENOWUN, OLUFUNKE ADERINKOMI, PETER ADEWUSI, IJEOMA
ADEWUYI, AINA ADEYEMI, GEORGE ADEYEMI, JACOB ADEYENI, ANUKUL
ADHIKARY, SHANEQUA ADKINS, DASHANA ADONIS, ALEXANDRA ADRIEN, and
OFELIYA AGASHIYEVA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03473 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2024) is an action against the
Defendant for back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief to remedy the Defendant's willful and
unlawful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant,
City of New York, employed by the Human Resources Administration in
the position of Job Opportunity Specialists or Associate Job
Opportunity Specialists. They assert that they have been subject to
the same policies and/or practices that violate the FLSA whereby
the Defendant fails to properly calculate the regular rate of pay
upon which their overtime rate is based and fails to pay overtime
compensation in a timely manner.
New York City is a public agency within the meaning of Section 3(x)
of the FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hope Pordy, Esq.
Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Flr
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 765 2100
E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
- and -
Diana Nobile, Esq.
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
Rachel Lerner, Esq.
MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
NEW YORK: M.G. Sues Over Unconstitutional Sexual Assault Reform Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
M.G., B.Z., J.L., and J.M. on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. DARRYL C. TOWNS in his official capacity as
the Chairperson of the Board of Parole, and DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO
III in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Case No.
1:24-cv-04051 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2024) alleges that the residency
restriction under the New York Executive Law, known as the Sexual
Assault Reform Act, is unconstitutional.
The Plaintiff brings this action to challenge the constitutionality
of SARA, the enforcement of which is overseen by the New York State
Board of Parole which is under the remit of the Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision. The SARA residency
restriction prohibits individuals convicted of sexual offences from
entering all restaurants, stores, streets, sidewalks, parks, and
parking lots located within 1,000 feet of the property line of a
school at any time and for any purpose. The same law also bars such
individuals from living in all residences and homeless shelters
within 1,000 feet of the property line of a school. The Plaintiffs,
who are subject to SARA, argue that in urban environments like New
York City, where schools are everywhere, this prohibition
effectively banishes them from the public square by severely
restricting their daily movements and forcing them into remote,
decrepit homeless shelters because they cannot find compliant
housing.
The Plaintiffs further claim that SARA is unconstitutionally vague
and expansive, leaving them and thousands of similarly situated
individuals indefinitely homeless or facing housing instability, in
constant fear of incarceration, and subject to the arbitrary whims
of their parole officers. They seek declaratory and injunctive
relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing the alleged
unconstitutionally vague, expansive, and unnecessary SARA
restriction.
The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is the New
York State department that administers the state prison and parole
system. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel R. Lambright, Esq.
Kathryn Sachs, Esq.
Rubin Danberg Biggs, Esq.
Molly K. Biklen, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 607-3300
E-mail: dlambright@nyclu.org
ksachs@nyclu.org
rbiggs@nyclu.org
mbiklen@nyclu.org
NIKOLA CORP: Face Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA)
between February 24, 2022 and September 7, 2023, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important December 12, 2023
lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Nikola securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Nikola class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19836 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 12, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Nikola maintained deficient safety and structural controls
related to its manufacturing of battery components; (2) the
foregoing deficiencies rendered Nikola's vehicles unsafe to operate
and thus unusable, thereby raising the likelihood of a product
recall; and (3) as a result, Nikola's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Nikola class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19836 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
NISSAN NORTH: Taylor Sues Over Data Security Failures
-----------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR, THOMAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00653
(M.D. Tenn., May 28, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to
implement adequate data security measures.
Between February 14, 2023 and November 7, 2023, the Defendant
experienced a data breach during which Plaintiff’s and Class
members' personally identifiable information was compromised. The
Defendant only notified affected individuals about the incident on
or around April 26, 2024. The Plaintiff brings this action over
Defendant's alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII and for its failure to provide
prompt and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class members that
their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party.
The Plaintiff further brings claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and
unjust enrichment, and also seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Nissan North America, Inc. is a car manufacturer based in Franklin,
TN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
alex@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
Tom Kherkher, Esq.
ATTORNEY TOM & ASSOCIATES
5909 West Loop South Suite 525
Houston, TX 77401
Telephone: (855) 866-9467
E-mail: tom@attorneytom.com
NORTHERN LIGHT: Faces Class Action Over Information Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Jones, writing for FOX 22, reports that a class action lawsuit
filed in Penobscot County Superior Court last week accuses Northern
Light Health of sharing people's personal, private medical
information with Facebook, Google, and other sites.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a patient identified as Jane Doe.
The suit alleges that as early as October 2018, Northern Light
Health "knowingly configured and implemented into its website,
code-based tracking devices known as pixels which collected and
transmitted patients' private information to Facebook and other
third parties without patients' knowledge or authorization."
It alleges that those trackers, including the meta pixel, tracked
users' interactions with the Northern Light website or portal and
transmitted the information, including I-P address and pages
viewed, search terms, button clicks, and form submissions.
It says the pixels can also connect patient portal activity to an
individual's unique Facebook id, allowing a user's health
information to be linked with their Facebook profile.
The plaintiff says she believes that due to the operation of the
Meta Pixel on the Northern Light website, her search terms, medical
services viewed, and patient portal activity were all transmitted
to Facebook and other parties.
Northern Light Health is strongly denying the allegations in the
lawsuit, saying in a statement:
"Northern Light Health categorically denies and rejects in the
strongest possible terms any allegations that it inappropriately
shared private or personal medical information with third parties
such as Facebook or Google. The complaint is a replication of
scores of lawsuits brought against leading hospitals and healthcare
providers across the country for their use of website analytics
technologies, which is a best practice across industries. The
inaccurate allegations in the complaint are replete with
speculative and false allegations that recklessly mischaracterize
our information privacy and security practices. These claims are
inappropriately alarmist and a disservice to our patients and
communities. Northern Light Health takes the privacy and security
of patient information seriously and intends to vigorously defend
this lawsuit. Sadly, these meritless claims require us to allocate
valuable resources to defend this lawsuit."
The lawsuit says that the plaintiff became aware of the alleged
inappropriate tracking activity when she began getting
highly-targeted, specific health-related advertisements related to
depression, respiratory devices, and inhalers reflecting her
private medical treatment information. [GN]
NOV INC: Taylor Sues Over Invalidation of Resignation Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Taylor, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders v. NOV, INC., Case No. 2024-0557- (Del. Chancery Ct.,
May 24, 2024), is brought seeking declaratory relief invalidating
the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement, of the Company's Amended
and Restated Bylaws, effective January 25, 2024 (the "Bylaws").
The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Company's board
of directors (the "Board") to usurp stockholders' exclusive right
to select the members of the Board. Except for allegations
specifically pertaining to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's own acts,
which are based on Plaintiff's knowledge, the allegations in this
Complaint are based upon the investigation of counsel, including
the review of publicly available information and documents, and
upon information and belief as to all other matters.
The Company has a "proxy access" bylaw (the "Proxy Access Bylaw")
pursuant to which the Company will include the name of any person
nominated for election to director ("Stockholder Nominee") by a
stockholder or group of stockholders owning 3% or more of the
Company's outstanding stock ("Eligible Stockholder"), along with
certain required information, collectively referred to as the
"Stockholder Notice" for that Stockholder Nominee, in the Company's
proxy statement for any annual meeting of the Company's
stockholders.
Absent the relief requested herein, the Irrevocable Resignation
Requirement will continue to interfere with stockholders' statutory
and equitable rights to choose the Company's directors.
Adjudication of this matter is thus essential to protect the
stockholder franchise, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been, a Company stockholder
since at least September 2023.
The Defendant is an equipment and technology provider to the
energy
industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 499-3600
Email: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
NURTURY AT FLANDREAU: Beda Suit Wins Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeniffer Beda, Nicole
Garcia, v. The Nurtury at Flandreau, Inc., et al., Case No.
7:22-cv-04827-NSR-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Reznik
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective
action.
The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a
collective that is limited to Assistant Teachers or Head Teachers
(also known as Teachers or Lead Teachers).
The Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations is granted.
The statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs is
tolled, starting Dec. 4, 2023, and until the deadline for potential
opt-in plaintiffs (following distribution of notice to those
potential opt-ins) expires.
The Plaintiffs' motion to send out the proposed notice to this
putative collective is granted in line with the modifications
discussed in this Opinion and Order.
The Plaintiffs Jeniffer Beda and Nicole Garcia bring this action
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and certain
provisions of the New York Labor Law, against Defendants The
Nurtury at Flandreau, Inc.
The Plaintiffs allege, as relevant now, that Defendants failed to
pay them minimum wage for all hours worked and failed to pay them
overtime for hours worked over 40 hours per week, in violation of
the FLSA.
Nurtury provides daycare services and Montessori educational
instruction to children.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w6scuu at no extra
charge.[CC]
NURTURY AT FLANDREAU: Discovery Must Be Completed by July 11
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beda v. The Nurtury at
Flandreau, Inc. et al, Case No. 7:22-cv-04827-NSR-VR (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Victoria Reznik entered an order that:
-- The parties' request for a 30-day extension of fact and expert
discovery is granted. All discovery shall be completed by July
11,
2024.
-- To accommodate this extension of discovery, the parties are
directed to write to Judge Román, requesting further
adjournment
of the Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for June
13, 2024.
-- The parties are directed to submit another joint letter, by no
later than June 13, 2024, providing the Court with an update on
the status of the case. The letter should detail the progress
of
discovery over the prior month, the anticipated next steps in
the
upcoming month, and the status of settlement discussions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b2dPju at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Erin N. Pietkewicz, Esq.
CONNELL FOLEY LLP
875 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 307-3700
Facsimile: (212) 542-3790
E-mail: EPIETKEWICZ@CONNELLFOLEY.COM
NYC PET.COM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nyc Pet.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03669 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons,
Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law, says the suit.
Nyc Pet.com offers several products and services for pets,
including pet food, treats, toys, clothes, and items designed for
training and healthcare. [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
OPENAI INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Illegal Personal Data Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Baha, writing for breakingthenews.net, reports that a
California judge dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit against
OpenAI and Microsoft that accused the companies of illegally using
their personal data to train artificial intelligence systems,
including ChatGPT, on the grounds of plaintiffs failing to present
a "short and plain statement."
"While the length of the complaint alone is unlikely to result in
dismissal, when a complaint is needlessly long and contains largely
irrelevant, distracting, or redundant information, dismissal under
Rule 8(a) is appropriate," US District Judge Vince Chhabria said in
a ruling and added that, besides being long, the complaint
contained "swaths of unnecessary and distracting allegations making
it nearly impossible to determine the adequacy of the plaintiffs'
legal claims."
However, the judge noted the plaintiffs have a right to amend the
complaint, but wanted them the amended complaint will be "dismissed
with prejudice" if it contains "irrelevant" information that
"interferes with a clear presentation of legal claims at issue."
[GN]
OREGON: Settles Foster Care Class Suit With Third Party Expert
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Unger and Jenna Deml, writing for KOIN 6 News, report that
after five years, a class-action lawsuit between children's
advocates and the State of Oregon reached a settlement Friday, May
24, with one key takeaway stating an outside, third-party "neutral
expert," must now monitor key parts of Oregon's foster care
system.
According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, the State
will contract with this third-party individual who will help
oversee everything from home placements to suspected abuse cases to
healthcare for thousands of kids in the system.
Federal inspection finds 'serious operational deficiencies' in
Sheridan prison
An initial, third-party review of the system itself must be
completed by April of next year, per the settlement.
All of this comes after the state spent millions defending itself
in court for the past five years in the case.
"We've had three different child welfare directors since we filed
this case," said Emily Cooper, legal director of Disability Rights
Oregon. "When you have that level of change of leadership, it can
be hard for that person to step up [. . . ] We're in a new day."
OMSI selected for national heat monitoring project amid 'growing
health hazard'
Governor Tina Kotek, ODHS, Agency Director Fariborz Pakseresht and
Child Welfare Director Aprille Flint-Gerner entered into the
settlement agreement with Disability Rights Oregon, A Better
Childhood, Rizzo Bosworth Eraut PC and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,
the attorneys who represent thousands of children and young adults
in Oregon foster care.
"This settlement gives us the opportunity to continue our efforts
to transform the child welfare system by supporting and preserving
families – while focusing on continuous improvements that will
yield better outcomes for families we serve," said Flint-Gerner.
"We appreciate the hard work by both parties in reaching an
agreement that is positive for Oregon children and families."
A trial between both sides had been slated for earlier this month,
but was pushed off as the settlement talks heated up.
Gov. Kotek also said in a statement she's "grateful" for the hard
work leading to a resolution to the case. [GN]
ORTHOCONNECTICUT PLLC: Salerno Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ORTHOCONNECTICUT,
PLLC. The case is styled as Jill Salerno, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORTHOCONNECTICUT, PLLC,
Case No. FST-CV24-6066991-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford Cty., May
22, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Misc - All other."
OrthoConnecticut -- https://myorthoct.com/ -- is the region's
premier, multi-specialty orthopedic practice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
PARK STREET: Vargas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Joao Vargas, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Park Street Gourmet LLC d/b/a Samba Montclair, and
Ilson Goncalves, Case caption, Case No. 2:24-cv-06400 (D.N.J., May
24, 2024) seeks to recover compensation for unpaid wages paid at
less than the statutory minimum wage; compensation for unpaid wages
for overtime work for which the Defendants willfully failed to pay
overtime premium pay as required by the New Jersey Labor Law; and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law; and the New Jersey Wage Payment Act.
Mr. Vargas further brings individual claims against the Defendants
for sexual harassment, hostile work environment in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination N.J. Stat. Ann. as well as claims for assault and
battery.
Samba Montclair is a domestic business corporation operating a
homestyle Brazilian restaurant organized under the laws of the
State of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 7 Park
Street, Montclair, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sholom J. Prager, Esq.
KRIEGER & PRAGER, LLP
39 Broadway, Suite 920
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-2900
E-mail: Sholom.prager@kplawfirm.com
PFIZER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re: Chantix
(Varenicline) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation Case No. 1:22-mc-03050-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting in part and denying
in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint (the "CAC").
In particular, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
for fraudulent misrepresentation is granted, as is Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act. Accordingly, Counts III and IV are hereby dismissed
with prejudice.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claims is granted in part, and Plaintiffs' claims arising under the
laws of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin are hereby dismissed with
prejudice.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on the basis
of preemption is denied to the extent Plaintiffs' claims rely on
the cGMP Misstatement and alleged violations of the specific cGMPs
identified in the CAC.
The Plaintiffs' claims arising out of the Sameness is statement and
the Active Ingredient Misstatement are preempted, and therefore not
cognizable. As to next steps, Plaintiffs shall provide supplemental
letter briefs, not to exceed ten single-spaced pages, on the issue
of pre-suit notice and the economic loss rule, on or before June
28, 2024. Defendant may provide a response, not to exceed ten
single-spaced pages, on or before July 26, 2024.
Both parties may provide appendices of authority, as appropriate,
and are advised to group their authorities, to the extent possible,
to reflect commonalities across state laws with respect to the
various exceptions to pre-suit notice requirements and the economic
loss rule, respectively.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not successfully
pleaded their unjust enrichment claims in the alternative, and will
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in those states for which Plaintiffs’
cited authority simply concerns the ability to plead in the
alternative, but for which further authority in each state confirms
the appropriateness of dismissal because the unjust enrichment
claims are subsumed within other claims in the CAC.
In this multidistrict litigation, the Plaintiffs bring a host of
claims against Defendant Pfizer in connection with Defendant's
voluntary recall of the prescription drug Chantix, after the drug
was found to be contaminated with excess levels of a nitrosamine
known as N-nitroso-varenicline.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T4BPR4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHARMCORP LLC: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMCORP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-06317 (D.N.J., May 21, 2024) arises from Defendant's
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 in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on January 29, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services, says the suit.
Pharmacorp, LLC owns and operates the website,
www.farhillspharmacy.com, which provides a wide range of pharmacy
services including prescription fulfillment, compounding for both
human and veterinary needs, rapid testing for various conditions, a
broad selection of vitamins and supplements, and immunizations.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
PRATT EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lemache Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL BOLIVAR ARMAS LEMACHE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRATT EQUIPMENT INC. and
SYLWESTER SERAFIN, DANUTA SERAFIN, and MARCIN NOWICKI, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03735 (E.D.N.Y., May 23,
2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Lemache was employed by Pratt Equipment Inc., as a
scaffolding installer while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants, from in or around July 2019 until in or around
April 2023. Throughout hi employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiff was regularly required to work 50 to 66 hours or more
hours each week. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a
wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40
in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Among other things, the Defendants
willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Pratt Equipment Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation
headquartered in Long Island City, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Class Certification Bids in Marshall Due Sept. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MARSHALL, et al.,
v. PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered
an amended scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact and expert discovery in Phase (1) shall be completed
no
later than Aug. 30, 2024.
-- Affirmative expert reports in Phase (1), if any, are due by
July
12, 2024.
-- Rebuttal expert reports in Phase (1), if any, are due by Aug.
9,
2024.
-- Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than
Aug. 30, 2024.
-- All motions for class certification shall be filed by Sept. 6,
2024.
-- Responses shall be filed no later than Oct. 4, 2024.
Prestamos is a capital lending organization accepting PPP
applications.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z6rXS2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Harker Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON LECHELE HARKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION AND
DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11372-ADB
(N.D. Cal., May 25, 2024) is an action arising from a cyberattack
resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the
possession and custody and control of the Defendant (the "Data
Breach").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach
resulted in the unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of
consumers' highly personal information, including names and Social
Security numbers ("personal identifying information" or "PII"). The
Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their PII.
As a result of the Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach,
the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered and will
continue to suffer damages, including monetary losses, lost time,
anxiety, and emotional distress, says the suit.
Progress Software Corporation develops, markets, and distributes
applications. The Company offers databases, application, messaging
servers, and development tools. Progress Software serves customers
in the United States. [BN]
Michael F. Ram
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Ave, Ste 500,
San Francisco, CA, 94102-3275
Telephone: (415) 846-3862
Email: mram@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Kearns Sues Over Data Security Failure
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER KEARNS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; and
PAYCOM PAYROLL LLC, Defendants, Case No. MDL No.
1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL (D. Mass., May 23, 2024) arises from
Defendants' failure to properly secure personally identifiable
information asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and
arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services
and applications involving MOVEit, Progress Software Corporation
stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members'
private information on its MOVEit transfer services software that
was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as
to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple
breaches of its network and systems or of its customers' networks
and systems, says the suit.
PSC is a Massachusetts-based software company that offers a wide
range of software products and services to corporate and
governmental entities throughout the United States and the world,
including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as
MOVEit. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
PURPOSE POINT: Bid to Dismiss Gomez-Echeverria Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS GOMEZ-ECHEVERRIA, et
al., v. PURPOSE POINT HARVESTING, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00314-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jane M.
Beckering entered an order:
-- denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens;
-- denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
state-
law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction;
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
-- denying the Defendants' motion for leave to file a supplemental
brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification; and
-- dismissing as moot the Defendants' motion to strike class
allegations.
The Court determines that the relationship between the Plaintiffs'
state-law claims and federal claims is sufficient for the exercise
of supplemental jurisdiction at this juncture. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the state-law claims is properly
denied.
Although the Second Amended Complaint suggests that the proposed
class claims include the minimum wage and human trafficking
violations, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification indicates
that they seek Rule 23 certification only as to the
breach-of-contract claim in Count V of the Second Amended
Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court will address the motion for class
certification as to the breach-of-contract claim only.
The Plaintiffs initiated this action over two years ago on March
31, 2022 with the filing of a Complaint.
The Plaintiffs allege that Purpose Point required the Plaintiffs to
pay an illegal $2,500 recruitment fee to work with the Defendants
and that their passports and Social Security cards were forcibly
taken
from them upon arrival in the United States. The Plaintiffs also
allege that they were not paid for all the hours they worked
during their employment with Purpose Point.
On Jan. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification to which the Defendants filed a response in
opposition and the Plaintiffs filed a reply.
The Plaintiffs are citizens of Guatemala who were recruited to work
at Purpose Point through the H-2A temporary agricultural worker
visa program.
Purpose Point is a farm labor contracting company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=By2JF2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
QUANTUM-SI INC: Faces Farzad Class Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
Quantum-SI Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2024, that the
Company faces the Farzad class suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
On May 16, 2024, a punitive class action lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, styled Farzad v. HighCape Capital, et
al. (the "Delaware Stockholder Litigation").
The Delaware Stockholder Litigation asserts breach of fiduciary
duty claims against the former officers and directors of HighCape
Capital Acquisition Corp. ("HighCape"), including Kevin Rakin, Matt
Zuga, David Colpman, Robert Taub and Antony Loebel, HighCape
Capital Acquisition LLC and HighCape Capital L.P., aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against Foresite Capital
Management, LLC and Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D., and unjust
enrichment claims against all defendants related to the business
combination between HighCape and then privately held Quantum-Si
Incorporated (the "Business Combination").
The Delaware Stockholder Litigation complaint alleges that the
transactions contemplated by the Business Combination were a
product of an unfair process which was allegedly impacted by
conflicts of interest, resulting in mispricing of the Business
Combination.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.
There is no assurance that defendants will be successful in the
defense of the litigation or that insurance will be available or
adequate to fund any potential settlement or judgment or the
litigation costs of the action.
Quantum-Si Incorporated develops protein sequencing platform.
RING LLC: Class Action Settlement in Privacy Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Ring LLC Privacy Litigation, Case
No. 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael
Fitzgerald entered an order granting plaintiff's motion for final
approval of class action settlement; plaintiff's motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards.
The Court finds reasonable Class Counsel’s Class request for
attorneys' fees in the amount of $436,995.37, reimbursement of
litigation costs incurred in the amount of $38,004.63, and service
awards of $5,000 for each Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff John Baker initiated this putative class action
against the Defendant Ring LLC on Dec. 26, 2019. The Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint (FAC) on
Dec. 17, 2020. The FAC alleged that Ring’s security systems were
defectively designed without sufficient security protocols, leaving
the Plaintiffs who used the systems vulnerable to cyberattack,
identity theft, and physical harm.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j7QsFp at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROACH BUSTERS: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES ALVAREZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. ROACH BUSTERS INC., and JUAN A. LOPEZ, and MARIA L. LOPEZ
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21768 (S.D. Fla., May 6,
2024) is an action seeking to recover monetary damages for unpaid
wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt, hourly employee, and he
had duties as a driver and fumigator from December 6, 2023 to
January 19, 2024, or six weeks. He asserts that Defendants failed
to pay him at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for
every hour in excess of 40 worked in a week period.
On January 17, 2024, the Plaintiff complained to the business
owner, Juan A. Lopez, about the lack of payment for overtime hours.
The owner told Plaintiff that he did not pay overtime hours. As a
result, on January 22, 2024, Defendants fired Plaintiff, says the
suit.
Roach Busters Inc. provides commercial and residential pest control
and fumigation services in Miami-Dade and Broward County,
Florida.[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
S.C. JOHNSON: McGrath Sues Over False Disinfectant's Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McGrath, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04273 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2024) arises from Defendant's
marketing that deceives consumers into believing its "Family Guard"
Brand Disinfectant Cleaner are safe for children and pets and
asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
To further reinforce deceitful message, the "Family Guard" Brand
name is always displayed on the products within a shield graphic --
a symbol of safety and protection. However, the said products
contain Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride C15, C14, C12, and
C10, which are harmful to both children and pets. Studies show that
quaternary ammonium compounds detected in human blood was
associated with increased inflammation, decreased mitochondrial
function and disruption of cholesterol. Moreover, quaternary
ammonium compounds have been found to alter neurodevelopment in
cells, says the suit.
Headquartered in Racine, WI, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. manufactures,
distributes, markets and sells household cleaning supplies and
other consumer chemicals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Peterson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC
230 E. Ohio St., Suite 410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (815) 999-9130
E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com
- and -
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie Monroe, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonroe@fmfpc.com
SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces Thompson Class Suit Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn Thompson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Senior Healthcare Advisors, LLC d/b/a Senior Healthcare
Direct, Case No. 0:24-cv-60916-AHS (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2024) is a
putative class action seeking to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is involved in selling
health insurance. To promote its services, Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming Gwendolyn Thompson, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
The Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief,
with the exception of those allegations that pertain to Plaintiff,
or to Plaintiff's counsel, which Plaintiff alleges on personal
knowledge.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the City of Jackson,
State of Mississippi.
The Defendant is a company based in Deerfield Beach, Florida, that
offers health insurance products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: mike@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
SIMPLIFIED TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Truck Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN TREJOS and MANUEL ENCISO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SIMPLIFIED TRANSPORT LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 24STCV13011 (Cal. Super., May 23, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
compensation arising from Defendants' failure to provide employees
meal and rest periods (or compensation therefor) as required under
California law, unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and unreimbursed
business expenses.
The Defendants failed, and continue to fail, to pay the Plaintiffs
and Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked by requiring,
suffering, or permitting them to work off the clock, and through
meal breaks without compensation; and by illegally and inaccurately
recording time worked by the Plaintiffs and Class Member, the suit
asserts.
As a direct and proximate result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
have sustained economic damages, including unpaid wages and lost
interest, in an amount according to proof at trial, and are
entitled to recover economic and statutory damages and penalties
and other appropriate relief due to the Defendants' violations of
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001.
Mr. Trejos worked for the Defendants as truck driver from Aug. 28,
2021 to Feb. 22, 2024.
Mr. Enciso worked for the Defendants as a truck driver since 2023.
Simplified offers transportation, logistics, and distribution
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
Kristen B. Doyan, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
SINGTEL OPTUS: Court Dismisses Appeal to Keep Cyber Attack Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for Lawyers Weekly reports that the
Australian Federal Court has ruled that Optus will not be able to
keep a report it commissioned from professional services firm
Deloitte regarding its 2022 cyber attack out of the hands of
lawyers representing a class action against the telco.
Optus had claimed that the report and its contents were protected
under legal professional privilege and that it was primarily
commissioned to provide legal advice. However, Federal Court judge
Justice Jonathan Beach ruled against this claim in November, saying
there were "problematic aspects" to the company's claim.
Justice Beach determined that since the report had been mentioned
in an Optus press release, and then Optus CEO had said the report
would "help inform the response to the incident", its "dominant
purpose was not a legally privileged purpose".
"This is hardly the stuff of a report being prepared or used
predominantly for legal advice or a litigation purpose," said at
the time.
The report must now be shared with law firm Slater & Gordon, which
is pursuing the class action on behalf of Optus customers impacted
by the data breach. It is expected that while the report is not
being released to the public, portions of it will likely become
public as the class action proceeds.
Ben Hardwick, class actions practice group leader at Slater &
Gordon, is pleased by the Federal Court's decision.
"Despite refusing to accept the umpire's decision, Optus must now
hand over the Deloitte report into how millions of its customers'
private information was accessed as a consequence of the 2022 data
breach," Hardwick told the AFR.
"Optus's efforts to shield this report is indicative of a company
that refuses to accept responsibility for its role in what
happened, and the significant impact this data breach has had on
millions of its Australian customers."
A spokesperson for Optus told Cyber Daily that it will "respect the
Court's decision" and that the company is "considering our
position".
"Our priority is ensuring our customers have ongoing confidence in
the integrity of our cyber defence systems," the spokesperson
said.
"In this regard, Optus will consider our next steps which may
include seeking confidentiality orders relating to elements of the
report that we believe are key to the ongoing protection of our
customer data and our systems from cyber criminals." [GN]
SLOY DAHL: Nestler Sues Over Imprudent Management of SDH Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN NESTLER, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. SLOY, DAHL & HOLST, LLC, and ALTA
TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00842-MO (D. Or., May 23, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
with respect to their disloyal and imprudent management of the
Sloy, Dahl & Holst Collective Investment Trusts ("SDH Funds") in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants imprudently invested
assets in the SDH Funds in highly risky and excessively expensive
investment products, to the detriment of investors. Furthermore,
the SDH Funds employ imprudently concentrated investment
strategies, devoting a substantial portion of each Fund to a
handful of underlying holdings. As a result of these actions, the
SDH Funds are predictably highly volatile. Yet Defendants make no
mention of a concentrated, risky, and highly volatile investment
strategy, misleading investors of the SDH Funds as to the strategy
with which their retirement assets will be managed.
The SDH Funds also charge excessive fees, in part, because their
underlying holdings utilize higher cost share classes than those
for which the SDH Funds are otherwise eligible. Because the cost of
the underlying holdings is passed along to investors, the Plaintiff
paid more money than necessary for the exact same value due to the
Defendants' failure to invest the SDH Funds' assets in identical
funds at a lower cost. This not only cost participants millions of
dollars throughout the class period, but it calls into question the
Defendants' prudence and skill in crafting these portfolios, and
Alta Trust's monitoring of SDH's performance.
Accordingly, the SDH Funds have consistently delivered inferior
risk adjusted returns for participants as a result of their
underlying holdings. As an example, the SDH Aggressive Fund
returned 0% to investors over the five-year period ending 2022, the
suit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this action to recover the losses caused by
the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, prevent further mismanagement
of the SDH Funds, and obtain equitable and other relief as provided
by ERISA. The Plaintiff participated in the Pacific Office
Automation Capital Accumulation Plan from 2015 through 2023 and is
a former participant in the Plan.
SDH provides investment advice and portfolio management services to
a range of client types, including individuals, employee benefit
plans, trusts, estates, charitable organizations, corporations,
investment companies, and bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David F. Sugerman, Esq.
Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
SUGERMAN DAHAB
101 SW Main Street, Suite 910
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 228-6474
E-mail: david@sugermandahab.com
nadia@sugermandahab.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Steven J. Eiden, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
E-mail: plukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
seiden@nka.com
SMKD DALLAS: Lightfoot Sues Over Unlawful Reimbursement Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY LIGHTFOOT, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. SMKD DALLAS INC. d/b/a PAPA JOHN's,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01261-E (N.D. Tex., May 23, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's delivery driver reimbursement policy
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately July
2023 to the present as a delivery driver at Defendant's Papa John's
store located in Weatherford, TX. The Plaintiff uses her own
automobile to deliver pizza and other food items to her customers.
However, the Defendant's delivery driver reimbursement policy
reimburses drivers on a per-mile basis, but the per-mile
reimbursement equates to below the Internal Revenue Service's
business mileage reimbursement rate or any other reasonable
approximation of the cost to own and operate a motor vehicle.
Moreover, the Defendant fails to reasonably approximate the amount
of its drivers' automobile expenses to such an extent that its
drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements, says the Plaintiff.
SMKD Dallas, Inc. owns and operates numerous Papa John's franchise
stores in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
SOHO HOUSE: Correa Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Correa and Kevin Ricardo Vazquez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SOHO
HOUSE & CO; SOHO HOUSE, LLC; SOHO HOUSE WEST HOLLYWOOD, LLC; LA
1000 SANTA FE, LLC; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 24STCV05493 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 24, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-04354.
The Plaintiffs' FAC pleads claims for failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to pay all wages due upon separation pursuant to
California Labor Code (aka "waiting time penalties"), failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse work-related
expenses, violation of California Business & Professions Code and
civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shareef S. Farag, Esq.
Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301
Phone: 310.820.8800
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
Email: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
npoper@bakerlaw.com
SPOTIFY USA: Mazumder Sues Over "Car Thing" Device Deactivation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HAMZA MAZUMDER, ANTHONY BRACARELLO and LUKE MARTIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPOTIFY USA INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04077 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of consumer fraud and unfair trade practices owing to its
decision to terminate its support of the Spotify Car Thing device.
This action arises out of Defendant's decision to unilaterally and
without recourse discontinue its support of the "Car Thing" device
and terminate its functionality as of December 9, 2024. The
Plaintiffs and Class members purchased the device from Defendant in
the belief that it would be functional for a reasonable period of
time. The Defendant allegedly omitted from its marketing,
advertising, and sales of the Car Thing material information
regarding its intention to prematurely render the device obsolete.
Further, the Defendant has refused to refund or replace the Car
Thing, causing damages to Plaintiffs and Class members, say the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, trespass to chattels, violations of the New York General
Business Law, violations of the Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade
Practices Act, violations of the Pennsylvania Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in New York, Spotify USA Inc. provides the Spotify
digital music service to users in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tyler Litke, Esq.
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 865-232-1315
E-mail: tlitke@milberg.com
mbreit@milberg.com
- and -
Adam Edwards, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN, 37929
Telephone: 865-232-1315
E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com
- and -
Leland Belew, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 224-8685
E-mail: lbelew@milberg.com
ST. JOHN KNITS: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. St. John Knits, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03446 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) is a civil rights action
against St. John Knits for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website https://www.stjohnknits.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.
According to the complaint, Stjohnknits.com contains access
barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind
persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers
are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate
heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning,
unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in St.
John Knits' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
St. John Knits, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets women's
clothing and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
STANLEY STEEMER: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Stanley Steemer International Data
Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-03932-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary
pretrial order as follows:
-- Any initial disclosures shall be made by: June 13, 2024
-- Any motion related to venue or jurisdiction June 13, 2024
shall be filed by:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to Sept. 30, 2024
join additional parties shall be filed by:
-- Motion for Class Certification shall be July 16, 2025
filed by:
-- Opposition to Motion for Class Cert. due by: Aug. 13, 2025
-- Reply to Motion for Class Certification Sept. 3, 2025
due by:
-- Fact discovery closes: Oct. 20, 2025
-- Plaintiff's class certification expert Feb. 28, 2025
reports must be produced by:
-- The Defendant's class certification expert April 14, 2025
reports must be produced by:
-- Rebuttal class certification expert May 14, 2025
reports must be produced by:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S2ZyX8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
STATEWIDE TRANSFER: Allen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Allen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. STATEWIDE TRANSFER AMBULANCE & RESCUE, INC., Case
1:24-cv-00858-MPB-MKK (S.D. Ind., May 22, 2024), is brought against
the Defendant's failure to properly pay overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours or more hours in a
workweek from January 2021 until his employment with Defendant
ended. The Plaintiff was not paid for all travel time spent
traveling from patient destinations to the station. The Plaintiff
was not paid for 5 hours each overnight shift for alleged sleep
time. The Defendant failed to follow the requirements of the
regulation regarding the subtraction of sleep time from Plaintiff
and the members of the Collective Action work time. This unpaid
work time was either regular or overtime hours, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an EMT for Defendant.
The Defendant is an incorporated company that is headquartered in
Crawfordsville, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
WELDY LAW
11268 Governors Lane
Fishers, IN 46037
Phone: (317)842-6600
Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Becerra-Paez Files Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syracuse University.
The case is styled as Diego Becerra-Paez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Syracuse University, Case No.
5:24-cv-00698-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Syracuse University -- https://www.syracuse.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Syracuse, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Fax: (516) 747-5024
Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
TALL TIMBERS: Smith Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
STACIE SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. TALL TIMBERS PIZZA HUT, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00197
(E.D. Tex., May 29, 2024) is a collective action suit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to herself and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by Defendants at its Pizza Hut stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores. The
Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to
deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However,
instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants
use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides
such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation
of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses
cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during
some or all, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
January 2021 to January 2023 as a delivery driver at Defendants'
Pizza Hut store located in Jacksonville, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 16
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that Teladoc Health,
Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead
Class Action Lawsuit
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers of shares of Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC) stock
between November 2, 2022 and February 20, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until July 16, 2024 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff of the Teladoc class action lawsuit.
Captioned Stary v. Teladoc Health, Inc., No. 24-cv-03849
(S.D.N.Y.), the Teladoc class action lawsuit charges Teladoc as
well as certain of Teladoc's top current and former executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Teladoc class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-teladoc-health-inc-class-action-tdoc.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Teladoc class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 16,
2024.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Teladoc provides online, direct-to-consumer
health service services. BetterHelp is Teladoc's largest division
and contributes the Company's greatest revenue share, contributing
about 42% of overall revenue.
The Teladoc class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that:
(i) Teladoc continued to expand its marketing spend throughout
2023, despite public assurances that it would pull back its
advertising spending;
(ii) increased marketing spend on BetterHelp deteriorated
Teladoc's revenue, with little return for that investment;
(iii) despite Teladoc's acknowledgment that increased
advertising spend would be marginally inefficient due to market
saturation, it continued to grow its advertising spend in the
BetterHelp business; and
(iv) despite public statements that there remained "a long
runway" for BetterHelp membership growth, BetterHelp's membership
stagnated and then decreased in 2023, due to market saturation,
largely due to BetterHelp's own marketing.
The Teladoc class action lawsuit further alleges that on February
20, 2024, Teladoc released its fourth quarter of 2023 earnings
report on Form 10-K, which demonstrated substantially increased
advertising costs "substantially driven by higher digital and media
advertising costs related to BetterHelp." Teladoc also revealed
that BetterHelp revenue fell $1 million compared to the year prior
and fell about $10 million from the third to the fourth quarter of
2023; that BetterHelp lost members for two consecutive quarters,
despite that increased advertising spend; and that Teladoc's
revenue was flat compared to the prior year and down 3%
sequentially -- well below expectation, according to the complaint.
On this news, the price of Teladoc's shares fell by more than 23%,
according to the Teladoc class action lawsuit.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Teladoc stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Teladoc class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Teladoc class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Teladoc class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff of the Teladoc class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading complex class action firms representing
plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm was ranked #1 on the
ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering
more than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in
a row Robbins Geller topped the list. And in those three years
alone, Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors,
more than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs'
firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. [GN]
TELEFLEX INC: Jones Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON JONES, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of TELEFLEX INCORPORATED v. TELEFLEX INCORPORATED,
Case No. 2024-0555 (Del. Ch., May 24, 2024) is a verified class
action complaint seeking declaratory relief invalidating the
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and
Restated Bylaws, effective Feb. 21, 2023 (the "Bylaws").
The lawsuit alleges that the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders'
exclusive right to select the members of the Board. The Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement is contrary to 8 Del. C. sections 141(k),
211 and 141(b). The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also
impermissibly subverts the stockholder Franchise, the lawsuit
says.
Furthermore, absent the requested relief, the Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with
stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the
Company's directors. Adjudication of this matter is thus essential
to protect the stockholder franchise. The Irrevocable Resignation
Requirement unduly restricts the stockholder franchise, is
inequitable, and violates Delaware law, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to
Court of Chancery Rule 23, on behalf of himself and all other
Company public stockholders except the Defendant and any current
director or officer of the Defendant.
Mr. Jones is, and has continuously been, a Company stockholder
since at least October 2023.
The Defendant is a medical device company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Nathan Abelman, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
TEMPUR SEALY: Anyasulu Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Harriet Genevieve Anyasulu and Alina Zhuravel,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
TEMPUR SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SEALY
ECOMMERCE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; TEMPUR-PEDIC
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SEALY
TECHNOLOGY LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company; THE
STEARNS & FOSTER BEDDING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV072341 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 22, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-03114-AGT.
The Plaintiffs allege that Tempur Sealy advertises prices for
mattresses, bedding, bases, frames, and/or other sleep-related
products, (the "Products") as limited time discounted offers that
are actually not, because the "Products never retail at the
purported regular price listed in strikethrough font." According to
Plaintiffs, Tempur Sealy's advertised prices are fake, deceptive
and illegal, thereby causing injury to consumers.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam R. Fox, Esq.
Helen H. Yang, Esq.
Chassica Soo, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: +1 213 624 2500
Facsimile: +1 213 623 4581
Email: adam.fox@squirepb.com
helen.yang@squirepb.com
chassica.soo@squirepb.com
TEMPUR SEALY: Caraffa Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Monica Caraffa, and all others similarly
situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 240402762 was removed from the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 23,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02214.
The Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against TD Bank
based on an alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"), for allegedly
permitting non-party "Meta Platforms Inc. ("Facebook") to intercept
communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members"
without "procuring their consent."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael S. Zullo, Esq.
J. Colin Knisely, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 979-1000
Email: MSZullo@duanemorris.com
CKnisely@duanemorris.com
TIM HORTONS: Judge Rejects Former Baker's Proposed Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Nguyen of CBC News reports that a B.C. judge has rejected a
years-long effort by a former Tim Hortons employee to certify a
class action lawsuit, which alleged that "secret" agreements
between the fast food giant and its franchisees suppressed workers'
wages.
Samir Latifi claimed that so called "no-poach" clauses in licence
agreements barred Tim Hortons franchise owners from hiring or
seeking to hire each other's employees, intentionally causing
economic harm to them in the process.
He argued that the clauses prevented workers from being able to
move to other stores within Canada's largest fast food chain --
which has more than 4,000 locations across the country -- for
better pay or working conditions.
Last week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Neena Sharma dismissed
Latifi's proposed class-action lawsuit, finding that the clauses
were meant to increase profits and not necessarily to harm workers.
"He's disappointed," said David Klein, a lawyer representing
Latifi. "He feels that it's an important case, that it should be
allowed to move forward."
Over 100 Tim Hortons workers have also expressed interest in
participating in the case since its launch in 2019, Klein added.
Latifi worked the graveyard shift as a baker at a Surrey, B.C., Tim
Hortons in 2012. The Tim Hortons brand is owned by a holding
company called the TDL Group.
According to court documents, the no-poach clause had existed in
Tim Hortons' licence agreements since at least 2003.
But TDL Group executives said the fast food chain stopped enforcing
existing clauses or mandating them for new franchisees as of
September 2018, according to the court decision, and complaints
related to them happened "extremely rarely."
In her judgment, Sharma accepted that its no-poach agreement's
primary goal was to benefit the franchisees and earn a profit for
the company -- not to injure workers.
In addition, the judge found that the expert evidence from Latifi's
side, regarding the effects of no-poach clauses, didn't do enough
to show TDL intended to harm its workers. She also said that he
relied too much on U.S. studies and other types of similar
employment restrictions.
Latifi's lawyers have already filed notice to appeal Sharma's
decision as of May 21. TDL's lawyers declined to comment for this
story.
Klein disputed the company's arguments, saying motivation for
profit and the intention to harm workers were "two sides of the
same coin." He argued that in order to retain workers, Tim Hortons
franchisees could have instead provided better working conditions,
higher wages or more opportunities for advancement.
"What they chose to do instead was to limit the other employment
opportunities for employees," he said. "You can have a carrot or a
stick, and they chose the stick."
Klein added that because workers often weren't aware of the clause,
it's difficult to know the full scope of how often people were
simply not hired because of it. They wouldn't also have known to
complain. Latifi himself first learned about Tim Hortons' no-poach
agreements from a U.S. news report, according to the lawyer.
No-poach clauses now illegal
Outside of the courts, the fight against no-poach clauses now has
the support of public policy.
Since June 2023, such agreements between unaffiliated employers --
like Tim Hortons franchisees -- are illegal under Canada's updated
Competition Act. Violations could result in up to 14 years in
prison as well as a fine based on the court's discretion.
For Latifi, however, it was too late. In 2021, Sharma threw out a
significant portion of his claim because the previous version of
the law didn't criminalize no-poach agreements.
"It wasn't meant to be," Klein said. "But it would have been a
strong case."
Jennifer Quaid, who teaches competition law at the University of
Ottawa, cautioned that the change is unlikely to spell the end of
no-poach clauses.
Because of the high bar of a criminal prosecution, she said it
would be difficult to go after every single offender.
"The biggest impact that this could have is symbolic," said Quaid.
"The criminal law is used to signal things that are truly
reprehensible.
"But for both legal and economic reasons, I don't think this
provision changes much." [GN]
TRINSEO LLC: Residents Eligible for Chemical Spill Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Read, writing for WHYY reports that Philadelphia residents and
businesses are eligible to receive at least $25 from a $2.7 million
class-action settlement over last year's Delaware River chemical
spill that led to bottled water advisories.
In March 2023, an estimated 8,000 gallons of a water-based latex
finishing solution from the Trinseo Altuglas chemical facility in
Bristol, Bucks County, leaked into the river.
The incident, which occurred upstream of the city's Baxter Drinking
Water Treatment Plant, did not impact drinking water.
However, the City of Philadelphia was criticized for its confusing
public messaging. After the city issued numerous bottled water
advisories, panic buying ensued, leaving some supermarket shelves
empty.
The settlement alleges residents suffered financial losses from the
purchases and driving to and from grocery stores. Businesses were
forced to turn off their tap water and scramble to find other
supplies, according to the lawsuit.
"This settlement really relates to economic injuries centered
around those recommendations by the city, and that were in the
media, to purchase bottled water," said Michael Twersky of Berger
Montague, one of the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit
on behalf of residents.
"This isn't a situation where something like drinking water was
affected . . . Mostly what people suffered was the need to purchase
bottled water, maybe a filter, the economic harms of driving a car,
maybe some restaurants suffered a little bit, but we're not talking
about the type of high damages you might see in other cases."
Trinseo and its subsidiary Altuglas, which blamed the cause of the
spill on equipment failure, have denied any violation of the law.
The defendants said they agreed to the settlement to avoid the
expenses associated with continuing the litigation.
Residents who lived in 38 Philadelphia zip codes during the spill,
as well as businesses in those areas, are eligible to receive a
base pay of $25 from the settlement. Anyone who can prove further
financial harm with documents such as receipts may be eligible for
more money.
Residents have begun to get notifications of the settlement through
the mail.
Ken Kristl, a law professor at Widener University Delaware Law
School, said the settlement removes the hassle of proving the
dollar amount spent on bottled water, while allowing people who
faced greater expenses to file for more money.
Though attorneys can claim up to a third of the settlement, cases
like these have several benefits, Kristl said.
"In many class actions, the attorneys come out very well, because
they get their fees and sometimes they get them upfront . . . but
that doesn't mean there isn't a positive benefit these types of
lawsuits can bring about," he said. "If a defendant has engaged in
wrongful conduct, the suit holds them to account. Plus others in
the community see, 'Oh, I could get sued if I do something
wrong.'"
Leftover settlement money must be partly allocated for the
environmental protection of the Delaware River and its tributaries,
or to provide drinking water to communities in need.
Residents and businesses interested in the settlement must file a
claim by August 16, and those who object to the settlement or wish
to exclude themselves to file their own lawsuit must do so by July
17. [GN]
UNITED STATES: East Fork Seeks Review of EPA Final Rule
-------------------------------------------------------
EAST FORK ENTERPRISES, INC. and EPIC PAINT COMPANY are filing a
petition for the Court to review a final rule of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register
in the lawsuit entitled East Fork Enterprises, et al., Petitioners,
v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0465.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final rule is entitled
"Methylene Chloride; Regulation under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA)."
The appellate case is captioned East Fork Enterprises, Inc. and
Epic Paint Company v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, et al., Case No. 24-60227, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 10, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners EAST FORK ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Keith Bradley, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
717 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1825
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 830-1776
Facsimile: (303) 894-9239
Email: keith.bradley@squirepb.com
- and -
Caffey Norman, Esq.
Allan Kacenjar, Esq.
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 457-5270
Facsimile: (202) 457-6315
Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are
represented by:
Jeffrey Prieto, Esq.
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
William Jefferson Clinton Building
Washington, DC 20460
UNITED STATES: Oklahoma Gas Seeks Review of EPA Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY is filing a petition for the
Court to review the final rule of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency published in the Federal Register at 89 Fed. Reg.
39798 in the lawsuit entitled Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company,
Petitioner, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et
al., Respondents, Case No. EPA-89FR39798.
The Respondents released a rulemaking entitled "New Source
Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New,
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule."
The appellate case is captioned Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company
v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 24-1126, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, filed on May 10, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY is
represented by:
Megan H. Berge, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
700 K Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (415) 291-6233
Facsimile: (202) 639-7733
- and -
Jonathan Mark Little, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
910 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 229-1489
Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are
represented by:
Eric Gerig Hostetler, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 23986
L'Enfant Plaza Station
Washington, DC 20026
- and -
Elliot Higgins, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
150 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 598-0240
- and -
Chloe Hamity Kolman, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Violations of Securities Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers or
acquirers of UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH) ("UnitedHealth" or
the "Company") common stock between March 14, 2022 and February 27,
2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), charging the Company and
certain current and former senior executive officers with
violations of the federal securities laws. UnitedHealth investors
have until July 15 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the
class action lawsuit.
If you purchased UnitedHealth common stock between March 14, 2022
and February 27, 2024, and suffered substantial losses, and you
wish to obtain additional information or serve as lead plaintiff in
this lawsuit, you may submit your information and contact us here:
https://dicellolevitt.com/securities/unitedhealth-group/.
You can also contact DiCello Levitt partner Brian O'Mara by calling
(888) 287-9005 or at investors@dicellolevitt.com.
No Case Has Been Filed and No Class Has Been Certified. Until a
case is filed and a class is certified, you are not represented by
counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your
choice.
Case Allegations
UnitedHealth is a health care and well-being company comprised of
two distinct and complementary businesses: Optum and
UnitedHealthcare. UnitedHealthcare provides health insurance to
individuals, employers, and small businesses and is the largest
insurance provider in the United States. Optum provides
healthcare-related services, including software solutions, payment
services, and data analytics.
The UnitedHealth class action lawsuit alleges that on January 6,
2021, UnitedHealth announced an agreement to acquire Change
Healthcare ("Change") and integrate it into its existing Optum
business. On February 24, 2022, and in response to the January 6
announcement, 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 customer
sensitive information ("CSI") from being shared between Optum and
UnitedHealthcare.
In May 2022, prior to the start of the antitrust trial,
UnitedHealth created a new firewall policy for Optum and
UnitedHealthcare which addressed the sharing of CSI following the
acquisition. This firewall policy was issued to specifically
address the Change acquisition and designed to keep Optum and
UnitedHealthcare data separate post-merger.
Ultimately, the acquisition was permitted with the court 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.
The UnitedHealth class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, UnitedHealth repeatedly assured investors that it had
taken steps to avoid anti-competitive behavior, including by
setting up "robust firewall processes" to prevent CSI from being
shared between UnitedHealthcare and Optum after the merger.
UnitedHealth explicitly stated that Optum "invests extraordinary
time, money, and resources into safeguarding [CSI] and keeping it
walled off from UnitedHealthcare" and that "UnitedHealth Group's
existing firewalls and data-security policies prohibit employees
from improperly sharing external-customer CSI." As a result of
Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, UnitedHealth stock traded
at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.
On February 27, 2024, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that
the DOJ had re-opened its antitrust investigation into
UnitedHealth. In the WSJ 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 this
disclosure, the price of UnitedHealth stock declined by $27 per
share, leading to a loss of nearly $25 billion in shareholder
value.
The lawsuit further alleges that UnitedHealth was aware of the DOJ
investigation since at least October 2023. Yet, rather than
disclosing this material investigation to investors or the public,
UnitedHealth insiders instead sold more than $120 million worth of
their UnitedHealth shares. In the four months between learning
about the DOJ investigation and the investigation becoming public,
UnitedHealth's Chairman Stephen Hemsley sold over $102 million of
his personally held UnitedHealth shares and Brian Thompson, the CEO
of UnitedHealthcare, sold over $15 million of his personally held
UnitedHealth shares.
About DiCello Levitt
At DiCello Levitt, we are dedicated to achieving justice for our
clients through class action, business-to-business, public client,
whistleblower, personal injury, civil and human rights, and mass
tort litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability
to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or
otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations
that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients
seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day,
we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our
clients.
DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of
the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law
Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark
ratings. The New York Law Journal also recently recognized DiCello
Levitt as a Distinguished Leader in trial innovation. For more
information about the Firm, including recent trial victories and
case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Media Contact
Amy Coker
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92121
(619) 963-2426
investors@dicellolevitt.com [GN]
VITALS CONSUMER: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Missouri, Kansas Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON and JASON
MOSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
VITALS CONSUMER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00088-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify
Count II of their First Amended Class Action Complaint for class
action treatment pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
-- Count II alleges a cause of action for infringement of the
common
law right of publicity. Because this claim is susceptible to
common proof and the proposed class satisfies all other
requirements of Rule 23, Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification can and should be granted.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify both a Missouri and a Kansas class
defined as follows:
The Missouri Class
"All natural persons who, during the time period Dec. 21, 2017,
to
the present, (a) maintained an office address in Missouri; (b)
appeared as a basic profile in the Vitals directory on the
vitals.com website and (c) did not claim their profile."
Excluded from the class are all judicial officers presiding
over
this or any related case. The class definition also excludes
all
shareholders, officers and employees of the Defendant.
The Kansas Class
"All natural persons who, during the time period Dec. 21, 2017,
to
the present, (a) maintained an office address in Kansas; (b)
appeared as a basic profile in the Vitals directory on the
vitals.com website and (c) did not claim their profile."
Excluded from the class are all judicial officers presiding
over
this or any related case. The class definition also excludes
all
shareholders, officers and employees of the Defendant.
Vitals provides healthcare medical information solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d7XSnG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David L. Marcus, Esq.
DLM LAW LLC
4700 Belleview Ave, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 256-4699
Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
E-mail: dmarcus@dlmlaw.com
- and -
Bryan T. White, Esq.
WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY
& CARR, L.L.C
19049 East Valley View Parkway
Independence, MO 64055
Telephone: (816) 373-9080
Facsimile: (816) 373.9319
E-mail: Bwhite@wagblaw.com
- and -
Clayton Jones, Esq.
CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
405 Foxwood Drive
Raymore, MO 64083
Telephone: (816) 318-4266
Facsimile: (816) 318-4267
E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com
VJR ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VJR ENTERPRISE, LLC; JEFFERSON ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT,
LLC; JEFFERSON FABRICATION, LLC f/k/a ALLEGIANT INDUSTRIAL, LLC;
JEFFERSON HOLIDAY ISLAND, LLC f/k/a ALLEGIANT INDUSTRIAL ISLAND
PARK, LLC f/k/a ALLEGIANT ISLAND PARK; ALLEGIANT COMPANIES, LLC;
ALLEGIANT COMPANIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; ALLEGIANT FIELD SERVICES, LLC;
ALLEGIANT GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC; RONALD BYRON YAWN; and PAYCHEX PEO
IX LL, Case No. 4:24-cv-01963 (S.D. Tex., May 23, 2024) alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay wages, including proper overtime
and minimum wages, on time and in full for all hours worked, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Since at least September 2023, the Defendants have failed to pay
their employees on time and in full for all work performed.
Plaintiff Brown worked for the Defendants during this period and
was affected by these pay practices, just like Defendants’ other
workers, says the suit.
This action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages the
Defendants owe Brown and other affected workers under the law,
including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest,
and other remedies provided by federal law.
VJR owns and operates interrelated fabrication, recycling, and
energy companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settles Emergency Brake Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that an Audi and Volkswagen settlement
returns money to drivers allegedly forced to pay for automatic
emergency braking (AEB) system repairs stemming from a manufacturer
defect.
The settlement benefits owners and lessees of certain Audi and
Volkswagen vehicles. Consumers can find a full list of eligible
vehicles cin the "Who's Eligible" section below or check their
vehicle eligibility using the VIN number lookup on the settlement
website.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Volkswagen and Audi
equipped certain vehicles with defective AEB systems, causing the
systems to fail or not function properly. According to the
plaintiffs, the defendants knew about the defects but forced
drivers to foot the bill for repairs.
Volkswagen Group owns Audi and Volkswagen, which are vehicle
manufacturers.
Audi and Volkswagen haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to
pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the AEB defect class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, all class members can receive an
extended new vehicle limited warranty. This extended warranty
covers 75% of the cost of AEB system malfunctions or failures
within 12 months or 12,000 miles.
Class members who previously experienced AEB system malfunctions or
failures can receive up to 75% reimbursement for repairs they paid
for out of pocket within 12 months or 12,000 miles of their
vehicles' original new vehicle limited warranty. Class members who
paid for repairs within their original new vehicle limited warranty
can receive up to 100% reimbursement.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 17, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
17, 2024.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by July 15, 2024.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits owners and lessees of certain Audi and
Volkswagen vehicles. Eligible vehicles include:
-- 2019-2023 Volkswagen Arteon
-- 2018-2023 Volkswagen Atlas
-- 2020-2023 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport
-- 2016-2017 Volkswagen CC
-- 2016-2021 Volkswagen Golf
-- 2016-2019 and 2022-2023 Volkswagen Golf R
-- 2016-2019 Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen
-- 2016-2023 Volkswagen GTI
-- 2016-2019 Volkswagen e-Golf
-- 2021-2023 Volkswagen ID.4
-- 2016-2023 Volkswagen Jetta
-- 2016-2022 Volkswagen Passat
-- 2022-2023 Volkswagen Taos
-- 2018-2023 Volkswagen Tiguan
-- 2015- 2017 Volkswagen Touareg
-- 2015-2020 and 2022-2023 Audi A3
-- 2019-2023 Audi Q3
-- 2013-2023 Audi A4
-- 2013-2023 Audi A5
-- 2013-2023 Audi Q5
-- 2012-2023 Audi A6
-- 2012-2023 Audi A7
-- 2011-2023 Audi A8
-- 2017-2023 Audi Q7
-- 2019-2023 Audi Q8
-- 2019-2023 Audi e-tron
-- 2022-2023 Audi e-tron GT
-- 2022-2023 Audi Q4
Consumers can check their vehicle eligibility using the VIN Number
Lookup on the settlement website.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Repair orders or other records, including:
-- Claimant name
-- Make/model/VIN of vehicle
-- Date of repair
-- Name/address of repair facility
-- Description of repair including parts repaired and parts/labor
costs
-- Vehicle mileage at time of repairs
-- Receipts or invoicing showing repairs were paid for
-- Proof of ownership
Claim Form Deadline
07/15/2024
Case Name
Dack, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-00615, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri
Final Hearing
-- 07/17/2024
Settlement Website
-- AEBSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
AEB Settlement Claims Administrator
C/O Rust Consulting Inc – 8510
PO Box 2837
Faribault, MN 55021-8641
info@AEBsettlement.com
(833) 637-2922
Class Counsel
BURSOR & FISHER
WALSH PLLC
SAUDER SCHELKOPF
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM R. GONNELLI LLC
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
CAPSTONE LAW APC
Defense Counsel
Michael B Gallub
Homer B Ramsey
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP [GN]
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Miner-Vargas Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
------------------------------------------------------------------
MADIGAN MINER-VARGAS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 608987/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., May 23,
2024) seeks to recover damages for untimely wages for Plaintiffs
and the similarly situated hourly non-exempt associates and
over-the-road drivers who work or have worked for Walmart in New
York between May 29, 2014 and May 2, 2024 in violation of the New
York Labor Law.
One of the Plaintiffs, Madigan Miner-Vargas, was employed by
Defendant in New York from in or around September 2021 through
approximately March 2022. Throughout her employment for Defendant,
over 25 percent of Miner-Vargas's job duties were physical tasks.
The Defendant, however, paid her on a biweekly basis, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Arkansas, Walmart operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Hunter G. Benharris, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Stucky Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT STUCKY, and individual, Plaintiffs v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES INC., a Delaware Corporation; WAL-MART STORES
INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of
Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 3, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-00933 to the proceeding.
The Complaint alleges eleven causes of action, including
disability/perceived disability discrimination; California Family
Rights Act discrimination; work environment harassment;
retaliation; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation; retaliation under California Labor Code; failure to
accommodate, and failure to engage in a good faith interactive
process; unfair and unlawful business practices; and wrongful
termination, in violation of public policy.
Wal-Mart Associates Inc. is an American multinational retail
corporation.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason E. Murtagh, Esq.
Kathryn Lee Colgan, Esq.
Minney Thind, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY LLP
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-8700
Facsimile: (619) 702-3898
E-mail: jason.murtagh@bipc.com
kathryn.colgan@bipc.com
minney.thind@bipc.com
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Jackson Seeks Proper Overtime Wages for Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE JACKSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04178 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2024) arises
out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for
all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the
appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and common law.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a remote agent since
approximately March 2023, and is still presently employed.
Defendant required its Plaintiff and other agents to begin work
prior to their scheduled shifts and perform a number of
off-the-clock tasks that were integral and indispensable to their
jobs, including booting up computers, logging into numerous
software programs, and logging into phones. However, they were not
compensated for the substantial amounts of off-the-clock time they
worked as part of their job duties, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Deerfield, IL, Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest,
LLC operates 9,000 drugstores in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
WALMART INC: Morris Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Morris, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart, Inc., d/b/a Spark, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04195 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2024) seeks 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.
The Plaintiff was employed by Spark as a driver until approximately
December 31, 2023. Spark requires Plaintiff and all its drivers to
take verification photos on their cell phones at regular intervals
when they are working through the Spark app. Spark then performs a
facial geometry analysis of Plaintiff's and its Drivers'
verification photos and government issued identification to verify
the identity of Plaintiff and its Drivers. However, Spark failed to
permanently destroy Plaintiff's facial geometry no later than time
that Plaintiff ceased working for Spark as a driver. In addition,
Spark did not inform Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose
and length of term for which his biometric information was being
collected, stored, and used, says the suit.
Headquartered in Arkansas, Walmart, Inc. is a retail corporation
operates an online, "app-based" delivery platform, branded and
known as "Spark". [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
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: PG&TGDP Sues Over Improper Taking of Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Guardian and Trustee of Gaston C. Duran Providence of
Ontario, and all those similarly situated v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case
No. 2:24-cv-10988-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich., April 15, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant's actions that constitute the improper and
unconstitutional taking of the property of the Plaintiff and the
putative Class Members without just compensation.
The Defendant's conduct caused the deprivation of Plaintiff and the
putative Class Members of valuable property rights consisting of
equity in real property without just compensation. This abuse stems
from the Defendant's property tax foreclosure process. Michigan law
generally authorizes counties to foreclose on private properties
whose owners have failed to pay all property taxes. Those
properties may be sold at auction, and the proceeds used to make
municipalities whole for unpaid taxes, as well as reasonable fees
and expenses.
Furthermore, the properties owned by Plaintiff and the putative
Class Members had significant equity (i.e., they were worth much
more than the amount owed for unpaid taxes, plus reasonable fees,
and expenses.) This excess value ("equity") was not refunded to
Plaintiff and putative Class Members. Plaintiff and putative Class
Members were permanently deprived of this equity without any
compensation.
The Plaintiff and the putative Class Members all fell behind in
paying their property taxes. Their properties were all forfeited
and then foreclosed upon, sometimes without constitutional
sufficient notice, says the complaint.
The Public Guardian and Trustee ("POT") was appointed guardian of
the property of Duran.
County of Wayne is a legal entity formed and existing under the
laws of the State of Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. McAlpine, Esq.
Daniel J. Pifko, Esq.
MCALPINE PC
3201 University Drive, Suite 200
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Phone: (248) 373-3700
Email: mlmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com
dpifko@mcalpinepc.com
- and -
Scott F. Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
30833 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Phone: (248) 626-1962
Email: smithsf.law@gmail.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Draining Customers' Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Richardson, writing for The Daily Hodl, reports that a Wells
Fargo customer in California just filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit accusing the bank of draining customers' accounts in
blatant violation of consumer protection laws.
The plaintiff, piano teacher Helen Palma, alleges Wells Fargo
unlawfully seized funds from her bank account after she fell behind
on credit card payments, reports ClassAction.org.
According to the filing, the bank won a judgement against Palma for
outstanding credit card debt.
But the lawsuit claims Wells Fargo then abruptly drained Palma's
checking and savings accounts without obtaining a required bank
levy -- allegedly violating state laws that require banks to give
customers proper notice, offer a chance to file a claim of
exemption as well as leave a minimum balance of $1,900 in
customer's accounts.
"In blatant disregard of these rules, Wells Fargo skipped the legal
process for a bank levy, which would have prevented it from taking
any money out of [the plaintiff's] accounts, and instead unlawfully
helped itself to her funds and leave [sic] her with only $102.74 to
her name."
Palma's class action seeks to protect all residents of California
who may have had their funds illegally withdrawn by Wells Fargo
within the last four years.
To date, Wells Fargo has not returned the funds to Palma and has
never proved that it had authorization to seize them, according to
the suit.
Specifically, the lawsuit accuses Wells Fargo of violating the
Truth in Lending Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
and California Unfair Competition Law. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Palma Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled HELEN PALMA, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, and ROES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CGC-24-612124, was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-02618 to the proceeding.
In her class action complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
violations of the Truth in Lending Act; violations of the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code;
conversion; violations of California Penal Code; and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professions Code.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit,
investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance
services.[BN]
Defendant Wells Fargo is represented by:
Amy F. Sorenson, Esq.
Kelly H. Dove, Esq.
Aliya L. Astaphan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
12230 El Camino Real Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 434-5020
Facsimile: (858) 434-5006
E-mail: asorenson@swlaw.com
kdove@swlaw.com
aastaphan@swlaw.com
WEST MARINE: Pardo Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, v. WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC. D/B/A
WEST MARINE, Case No. 1:24-cv-22005 (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2024) is a
class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff says that he visited the commercial property and
retail store of the Defendant, to include visits to the commercial
property and retail store on March 27, 2024, and May 22, 2024, and
encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected
his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. He often
visits the Commercial property and business located within the
commercial property in order to avail himself of the goods and
services offered there, and because it is within the same county
that the Plaintiff lives in and is approximately 38 miles from his
residence and is near other business and retail store he frequents
as a patron, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have
been denied access to, and have been denied full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities privileges, benefits,
programs and activities offered by Defendant's commercial property
and commercial retail store business within the commercial
property; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged
by the Defendant because of the Defendant's ADA violations as set
forth above, the suit added.
West Marine is an American company based in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
WILLIAM MARSHALL: Brandon Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon v. Marshall, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00265 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a Plaintiff class for declaratory and
injunctive relief defined as:
"All persons on parole under the authority of the WVDCR who,
after
having been previously approved by the Parole Board or their
parole
officer to be housed at a non-WVDCR certified recovery residence
and not having violated any element of their parole, have been
or
are being forced Defendants to vacate their previously approved
housing by May 31, 2024."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=btrygD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Smith, Esq.
Mountain State Justice, Inc.
1029 University Ave., Ste. 101
Morgantown, WV 26505
E-mail: lydia@msjlaw.org
lesley@ msjlaw.org
gary@ msjlaw.org
WILLIAMSBURG RUNNING: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Martin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WILLIAMSBURG RUNNING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03762 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate Defendant's website, www.brooklynrunningco.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.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" as Plaintiff's central visual acuity with
correction is less than or equal to 20/200.
Based on a 2020 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired ,
including 2.0 million who are blind. According a 2016 report
published by the National Federation of the Blind, 2016 report,
approximately 418,500 visually impaired persons live in the State
of New York.
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. The 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, says the suit.
The Defendant's Website, and the goods and services offered
thereupon, is a public accommodation within the definition of Title
III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12181(7)(j).[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
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
XIAO-I CORP: Rosen Investigates Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Xiao-I Corporation (NASDAQ: AIXI) resulting from allegations
that Xiao-I Corporation may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Xiao-I Corporation securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25023 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On August 10, 2023, Xiao-I Corporation filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission its amended annual
report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2022. In the
amended annual report, Xiao-I disclosed that "should there be any
changes to PRC laws and regulations or internal control policies of
Bank of Ningbo in the future, [Zhizhen Artificial Technology
(Shanghai) Company Limited, a Company subsidiary] then may be
restricted from transferring funds from overseas to its capital
account with Bank of Ningbo as a result."
On this news, Xiao-I American Depositary Shares' ("ADSs") fell
$0.93 per ADS, or 11.6%, to close at $7.11 per ADS on August 11,
2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
YALE-NEW HAVEN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ruilova
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAITY RUILOVA, et al., v.
YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00111-MPS
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael Shea entered an order
maintaining certification of the Settlement Class pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Settlement Class is defined as:
"All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the
Class Period (Jan. 21, 2016 through the date the Preliminary
Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any
Beneficiary
of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time
during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person
subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated
in
the Plan at any time during the Class Period."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, including the
individual members of the Board of Trustees of Yale New Haven
Hospital, Inc. and the Committees during the Class Period, and
their Beneficiaries."
Class Counsel is awarded Attorneys' Fees in the amount of
$250,000.00, inclusive of litigation costs and expenses, plus any
applicable interest, such amounts to be paid out of the Settlement
Fund within 21 calendar days of the Effective Date of the
Settlement.
Yale is a 1,541-bed hospital located in New Haven, Connecticut.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N9PzOB at no extra
charge.[CC]
[*] Port Moody, BC Supports Suit Against Fossil Fuel Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Crawford of Vancouver Sun reports that Port Moody city
council voted to support a potential class-action lawsuit against
large fossil fuel companies.
The city is the seventh municipality in B.C. to join the campaign,
along with Burnaby, Squamish, Gibsons, View Royal, Slocan and
Qualicum Beach, according to West Coast Environmental Law, the firm
advocating for a suit to recoup climate change-related costs.
In case a local government decides to act as lead plaintiff and a
class-action lawsuit goes ahead, Port Moody is setting aside $1 per
resident (estimated at $38,000) to be used as a contribution toward
legal fees, added Lahti.
The money will be placed in a dedicated fossil fuel litigation
reserve, which is to be funded from current insurance reserves.
Lahti said because these reserves already exist there is no tax
impact from this transfer of funds.
The city is calling on the provincial and federal governments to
enact legislation that holds fossil fuel companies financially
liable for climate-related harms caused by their contributions to
climate change.
"Fossil fuels have contributed to climate change in a significant
way and, as we work to implement Port Moody's Climate Action Plan,
it's important that we recover costs so that we can reduce the
financial burden placed on our residents."
Port Moody and other B.C. communities are facing massive costs as a
direct result of fossil fuel pollution and climate change, said
Andrew Gage, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.
Gage said fossil fuel companies have known as far back as the 1950s
that their products would contribute to climate change.
"They fought tooth and nail to prevent the world from shifting away
from fossil fuels so that they could make trillions of dollars in
profits. It's time they paid their fair share for the damage
they've caused," he said in a statement.
The law firm is aiming for support from enough municipalities to
represent half a million B.C. residents. So far they have about
340,000, and are hoping that another large city like Coquitlam,
Surrey or Vancouver will join.
West Coast they still need one of the participating municipalities
to step forward as a lead plaintiff, and then the suit could move
forward once they hire legal representation. [GN]
[*] Superior Court of Quebec Certifies Recyclable Bags Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia O'Malley of CTV News Montreal reports that the reusable
plastic bags collected from various shops and sitting in your
closet could earn you some money.
The Superior Court of Quebec has authorized a class action lawsuit
over the bags. Anyone who has, for example, purchased a reusable
plastic bag from Dollarama (or a number of Quebec stores) can be
part of the class action lawsuit.
"I would assume that this impacts several million people across
Quebec," said Joey Zukran of LPC Avocats.
Zukran is leading the case against the following defendants:
-- Dollarama
-- Societe des alcools du Quebec (SAQ)
-- Rona Inc. and Lowe’s
-- Metro Inc.
-- McKesson Canada (Uniprix pharmacies)
-- Toys R Us
-- Costco
-- Giant Tiger
Zukran claims these stores sell bags they advertise as recyclable
when they aren't.
Zukran said according to one of the biggest recycling facilities in
Quebec, Tricentris, these plastic bags cannot be recycled in Quebec
or even anywhere in Canada.
"If you try to stretch it, it does not stretch. It's rigid and
therefore it goes in the garbage, not in the recycling bin," he
said. "The law is very, very clear. You cannot make a false or
fraudulent claim in this case, in our view, that the claims are
clearly and manifestly wrong, false and fraudulent and
misleading."
Several of the companies mentioned in the lawsuit, including
Dollarama, tell CTV News they will not be commenting on the subject
because of the ongoing legal procedure.
Any Quebecer who bought a bag from April 16, 2019 until now is
eligible to join the class action. [GN]
[*] Tennessee Passes Law Restricting Data Breach Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP, writing for The National
Law Review, reports that Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed
legislation on May 22, 2024, that will shield private entities from
class action lawsuits stemming from a cybersecurity event unless
the event was caused by willful, wanton, or gross negligence.
The bill, as introduced, "declares a private entity to be not
civilly liable in a class action resulting from a cybersecurity
event unless the cybersecurity event was caused by willful, wanton,
or gross negligence on the part of the private entity. The bill
amends TCA Title 29 and Title 47."
This bill will be a blow to class action plaintiffs' law firms that
have routinely filed suit against companies that are victims of
criminal cybersecurity attacks, alleging that the companies were
negligent in protecting consumer data. The bill provides a high bar
for plaintiffs to overcome to pursue class action litigation in
Tennessee.
It will be very interesting to see how other states follow. We will
be following this closely. [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 ***