/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240607.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 7, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 115
Headlines
396 ENTERPRISES: Loor Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
3M COMPANY: Marc Whitehead Files 2 Lawsuits for Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Melson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Mixter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Partridge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ADVANCE AUTO: Shareholder Suits Over SEC Disclosures Consolidated
ALL MAJOR APPLIANCES: Martin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ALLSTATE CORP: $25MM Deal in Insurance Class Suit Gets Okay
AMERICAN SENIOR: Guidry Sues Over Violations of TCPA DNC Registry
APPLE INC: Court Rejects Pretrial Appeal in Antitrust Class Action
APPLE INC: Miller Sues Over Monopolization of Smartphone Market
AQUA PARTNERS: Plaza Not Accessible to Mobility-Impaired Person
ASCENSION HEALTH: Lyons Sue Over Private Data Breach
ASCENSION SAINT THOMAS: Patient Files Class Action Over Data Breach
AT&T INC: Sutherlin Sues Over Data Breach Claims
BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL: Pills Contains Carcinogen, Boyer Says
BROOKLYN BAGEL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martin Claims
BROWN GIRL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Reid Class Suit Claims
CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Allen Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Turpel Shareholder Suit in New York
CANOPY GROWTH: Kanter Shareholder Suit Transferred to S.D. N.Y.
CHAMPAGNE CAMPAIGN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Morgan Alleges
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
CONTAINER STORE: Settlement Reached in Hayes Securities Suit
DECIPHERA PHARMA: M&A Investigates Merger With ONO Pharmaceutical
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
DOLLAR GENERAL: Edmonds Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces WCERS Securities Suit
DOLLARAMA INC: Court Authorizes Suit Over 'Recyclable' Bag Claims
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in DeBose Class Suit
EAST WEST TEA: Kaatz Sues Over Pesticide-Contaminated Product
ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Bialic Suit Over Drop in Share Price
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Verification Services
FASTLY INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
FASTLY INC: Kula Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Kenny Suit Over Undisclosed Finance Charge
FLAGSTAR BANK: Gardner Appeals Case Dismissal Order to 6th Cir.
FRANK ANTHONY'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Agudelo Alleges
GAMESTOP CORP: Page Appeals Dismissal of Deceptive Ads Case
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Faces Wong Suit Over Emergen-C False Ads
GLJ TWO: Raum Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
GREAT WALL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fernandez Suit Alleges
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Wooten Says
HAIR CUTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination
HAMPSHIRE HOUSE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Makovic Alleges
HANNA HOLDINGS: Faces Davis Suit Over Anticompetitive Conspiracy
HEALTH AND LIFE: Yang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HERSHEY CO: Stanzione Sues Over Pirate's Booty Snacks' False Ads
IMMUNOVANT INC: Court Dismisses Securities Suit
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Inflating Loyal Customers Bills
JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Ridge Sues Over Illegal Sewer Impact Fees
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Patients Sues on Fraudulent Chapter 11 Filings
KORU HEALTH: Class Settlement in Burnett Suit Gets Final Approval
LEBANON VALLEY: Alunni Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
LIVE NATION: Parties Seek to Extend Briefing Schedule Deadlines
LLOYD AUSTIN: Feds For Freedom Seeks Class Certification
LOS ANGELES MAISON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Balynska Alleges
MADONNA: Halper-Asefi Sues Over Deceptive Advertisement
MALAYSIAN MUSLIM: Class Suit Alleges Death Due to COVID-19 Vaccine
MANTEI & ASSOCIATES: Appeals Atty.'s Fees Ruling in Black Suit
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Faces Class Suit Over Biometric Collection
MATY'S HEALTHY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Jackson Suit Says
MDL 2989: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Denied as Moot
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Securities Suit Over False Statements
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosure
MERRILL LYNCH: Agrees to $20-Mil. Racial Class Action Settlement
MERRILL LYNCH: Council et al. Allege Workplace Discrimination
MERS MISSOURI: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Rayburn Claims
MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
MUNCHKIN INC: McKinney Sues Over Refill Bags' False Labeling
MV TRANSPORTATION: Ousley-Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Browne Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
NATIONS DIRECT: Kuhn Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
NCINO INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit
NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Denver Plant's Foul Odor
NEW YORK: Cymbler Sues Over Illegal Installation of Cameras
NISSAN NORTH: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Info, Levey Claims
NORTH STATE ELECTRICAL: Roper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NVIDIA CORP: Shareholder Suit in CA Court Ongoing
OKN INC: Prats Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
OLIPHANT USA: Nabbefeld Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
PATAGONIA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Digital Spy Trackers
PERF OPCO: Danso Sues Over Noncompliance of ADA's Web Accessibility
PIO PIO NYC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Obando Suit Alleges
PRIMAL HEALTH: Schick Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Borovoy Sues Over False and Misleading Statement
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Pfaff-Harris Sues Over Undervaluing Total Loss
RIO TINTO: May Face Class Action Over Employee Sexual Harassment
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over More than 25% Stock Price Drop
SAFIAN & RUDOLPH: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Says
SAGE HOME: Fails to Secure Customers, Employees' Info, Kisling Says
SAHOLA INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Class Suit Says
SAINT GOBAIN: Class Settlement in Lampton Gets Final Approval
SENTINELONE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California
SHANER OPERATING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Paton Due Oct. 14
SHONAZ FOODS: Haynes Files ADA Suit in W.D. Texas
SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
SPOKEO INC: Court Certifies California and Ohio Classes in Kellman
SPORTSENGINE INC: Morales Files Suit in S.D. New York
STRYVE FOODS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bullock Suit Says
TARGET CORP: Faces Arnold Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
TELADOC HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 16
TESLA INC: Supreme Court Certifies Severe Racism Class Action
TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Bid for Class Status Must be Filed by July 8
TIM HORTONS: BC Supreme Court Dismisses No Hire Clause Class Suit
UNION SECURITY: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Seeks Class Certification
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Settles COVID-19 Tuition Lawsuit for $4.95MM
US CUSTOMS: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Set for August 27
VESTIS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
VIEUX VINS: Olivier et al. Sue Over Untimely Wage Payments
VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Stays Discovery Deadline
WAWA INC: Appeals Atty.'s Fees Ruling in Data Security Litigation
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bertocchini Says
WESTGATE RESORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hilbert Suit Says
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 7
ZEROO GRAVITY: Bid for Class Settlement Initial Approval Nixed
ZOOM VIDEO: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for June 13
ZYNEX MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Commission Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges
[*] Latham & Watkins Foresees Increase in UK Class Action Claims
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ben Nye Files for Bankruptcy Due to Talc Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall's 2-Step Asbestos Bankruptcy Avoids SC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Tosses LTL's Suit Over Medical Article
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Awards $260MM in Talc Case Against J&J
*********
396 ENTERPRISES: Loor Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
MARISOL LOOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 396 ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a NEW LOOK CAR
WASH, and JEFFREY HAZA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06444 (D.N.J.,
May 24, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for Plaintiff
and her similarly situated co-workers--all of whom worked as
non-exempt car wash/cleaning workers for Defendants' car
wash/cleaning/detailing businesses pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants, continuously on a full-time
basis, from May or June of 2021 until November of 2021, and then
again from June of 2022 until Sunday April 28, 2024, when she was
abruptly fired. The Defendants illegally failed to pay her and the
other non-exempt car wash/cleaning workers overtime premiums for
the many overtime hours they worked, says the Plaintiff.
The 396 Enterprises, LLC operates New Look Car Wash in Bloomfield,
NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (888) 239-4410
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Marc Whitehead Files 2 Lawsuits for Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Whitehead & Associates, LLP filed 2 lawsuits seeking class
action status against the Defendants 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.). 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 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.
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:
Anthony Hill. Case No. 2:24-cv-02257-RMG.
Kenneth Hughley. Case No. 2:24-cv-02258-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:
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: Melson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Edward Melson, 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-02144-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 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: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Mitchell, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; 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-01977-RMG (D.S.C., April 16, 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
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 the
material and remains and persists over long 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 remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF 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 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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent'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 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
products.
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Mixter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Mixter, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; 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-01978-RMG (D.S.C., April 16, 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
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 the
material and remains and persists over long 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 remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF 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 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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent'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 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
products.
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Partridge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Clifton Partridge, 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-02181-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 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
ADVANCE AUTO: Shareholder Suits Over SEC Disclosures Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 29, 2024, that on October 9, 2023 and
October 27, 2023, respectively, two putative class actions on
behalf of purchasers of its securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 16, 2022 and May 30,
2023, were commenced against the company and certain of its former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. These cases were consolidated on
February 9, 2024 and the matter is in preliminary stages.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made certain false and
materially misleading statements during the alleged Class Period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases are still in
preliminary stages and we expect that they will be consolidated.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and subsidiaries is an automotive
aftermarket parts provider in North America, serving both
professional installers and do-it-yourself customers. As of October
7, 2023, it operated a total of 4,785 stores and 320 branches
primarily within the United States, with additional locations in
Canada, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
ALL MAJOR APPLIANCES: Martin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL MAJOR APPLIANCES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03759 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) alleges that Defendant
has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
The class action arises from Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build
its website in a manner that is compatible with screen access
programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly
interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of
purchasing the Front Load Washer, that Plaintiff wished to acquire
from the website, says the suit.
Based in New York, All Major Appliances owns and operates the
website, www.drimmers.com, which sells a wide array of home
appliances such as refrigeration, cooking appliances, dishwashers,
washers and dryers, and air control systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
ALLSTATE CORP: $25MM Deal in Insurance Class Suit Gets Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge in
California has approved a $25 million class-action settlement in a
lawsuit accusing insurance giant Allstate (ALL.N), opens new tab of
overcharging thousands of its automotive policyholders based on
their willingness to pay a higher premium.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland ruled, opens
new tab that a small number of objections to the settlement did not
derail the accord, which she called "fair, adequate, and
reasonable."
More than 1.2 million class members in California accused Allstate
of violating California's unfair competition law and other
provisions by using motorists' tolerance for price increases to
help calculate premiums, which is prohibited for insurance
providers.
Affected policyholders can expect an average recovery of about $13
per class member, Rogers wrote. Allstate denied any wrongdoing in
agreeing to settle the lawsuit, filed in 2015.
The company also agreed under the settlement not to use "any form
of price optimization" to set private passenger auto rates for
California policyholders.
Illinois-based Allstate and the plaintiffs' attorneys did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
Rogers overruled three objections that were filed to the
settlement. One argued that the distribution of the same payment to
class members was not fair, and also that the plaintiffs' attorneys
will receive too much in fees from the settlement fund.
In her ruling, Rogers approved nearly $7.8 million in legal fees
and litigation costs. The fee award amounted to 30% of the
settlement fund. Allstate did not oppose the amount.
Rogers acknowledged that the court does not generally approve a 30%
fee award, since the benchmark for California and other states in
the western United States that are part of the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals is 25%.
But the judge called the case unique, noting in part that
"plaintiff's counsel has spent a far above-average amount of time
on this matter."
The class attorneys in a filing, opens new tab said they had
invested more than 6,800 hours in the litigation.
The case is Andrea Stevenson v. Allstate Insurance Co et al, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No.
4:15-cv-04788-YGR. [GN]
AMERICAN SENIOR: Guidry Sues Over Violations of TCPA DNC Registry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tori Guidry, writing for TCPA World, reports that on May 28, 2024,
Plaintiff Priscilla Guidry filed a putative class action against
American Senior Services, Inc., which alleges violations of the
TCPA's National DNC Registry provisions.
Guidry alleges that, despite her number being on the National DNC
Registry, she was contacted by American Senior Services on three
separate occasions in a two-month period.
During each of the alleged calls, Guidry spoke with "Adam" who
promoted American Senior Care, and on two of the calls, "Adam"
transferred her to Mark Sims who identified himself as with
American Senior Services.
Plaintiff is seeking to represent the following class:
The Federal TCPA DNC Class: All persons within the United States
who received two phone calls within a 12-month period from
Defendant to said person's telephone, and such person had
previously included their name on the National Do Not Call Registry
at least 31 days prior to receiving Defendant first call, within
the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
At first, I thought that there is likely no relation since
Priscilla Guidry is alleged to be a Florida resident, but as you
read on, there is an inconsistent allegation that she resides in
Louisiana. And if you didn't already know, I'm from Louisiana.
So, in short, there is a chance.
Anyway, we will keep you posted on any interesting developments in
this case, and maybe also on the potential familial relation
between myself and Priscilla. [GN]
APPLE INC: Court Rejects Pretrial Appeal in Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that Apple has failed
to persuade a U.S. appeals court to consider blocking a class
action that accuses the iPhone maker of monopolizing the market for
iPhone apps and keeping prices artificially high for tens of
millions of customers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 24, rejected, opens
new tab Apple's bid for a pretrial appeal after a California
federal judge in February allowed consumers to band together to
pursue billions of dollars in alleged damages.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers certified a class of
consumers who spent $10 or more on Apple app or in-app purchases
since 2008. The lawsuit, filed in 2011, accuses Apple of violating
U.S. antitrust law by too tightly restraining how customers
download apps.
Apple did not immediately respond to request for comment. The
appeals court panel denied Apple's appeal without a hearing.
Mark Rifkin, an attorney for the class, welcomed the appeals
court's order in a statement.
"Apple has left no stone unturned in this 17 year old litigation,
and it has been unsuccessful at every stage of the proceedings," he
said.
Apple had argued, opens new tab that Rogers order would unfairly
allow at least 10 million App Store accounts to be included in the
case without the plaintiffs having shown how the account-holders
were allegedly harmed.
Lawyers for the Apple customers urged, opens new tab the 9th
Circuit not to hear the case, asserting that Rogers "faithfully"
applied prior rulings in her decision to approve class status.
Apple drew a parallel to a Google class-action of 21 million
consumers that the 9th Circuit said last year it would review. But
the appeals court never ruled in the Google case, after the trial
judge said he would reverse his order approving the class action.
Both sides in the Apple case have suggested a possible trial window
for 2026.
The U.S. Justice Department separately in March accused Apple in
New Jersey federal court of monopolizing the smartphone market.
Apple has denied the claims and said it will ask a judge to dismiss
the lawsuit.
The case is In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-875. [GN]
APPLE INC: Miller Sues Over Monopolization of Smartphone Market
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MILLER, individually and in a representative capacity on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06427 (D.N.J., May 24, 2024) arises
under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Sections 4
and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act and seeks relief from
Defendant's attempted and actual monopolization of the market for
the sale of smartphones in the United States.
The Plaintiff alleges that Apple has used one or both mechanisms
(control of app distribution or control of Application Programming
Interfaces) to suppress super apps, cloud stream game apps,
messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets. Apple is
suppressing these technologies to protect its smartphone
monopoly--and the extraordinary profits that monopoly generates,
says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple Inc. is a technology company
that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services. [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
Telephone.: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: 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
Telephone: (781) 350-0000
Facsimile: (702) 983-8673
E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
AQUA PARTNERS: Plaza Not Accessible to Mobility-Impaired Person
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. AQUA PARTNERS LLC; and
DESIGN PLACE REAL ESTATE LLC d/b/a ARTEFACTO CLEARANCE CENTER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22049-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2024)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
commercial buildings located at 17651 Biscayne Boulevard, Aventura,
Florida 33160, is not accessible to mobility-impaired persons.
AQUA PARTNERS LLC owns and operates a commercial retail shopping
plaza at Aventura, 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
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Lyons Sue Over Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
CHARMENY LYONS, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00640-PP (E.D. Wis., May 24, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and Class Members' protected personal information stored within
Defendant's information networks and servers, asserting claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of
implied contract.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause them
and thousands of other similarly situated persons by virtue of an
unauthorized and preventable cyberattack that Defendant discovered
by no later than May 8, 2024, when it detected unusual activity on
select technology network systems.
However, Defendant's online notice on May 9, 2024 failed to include
data breach's critical facts about the identity of the
cybercriminals who perpetrated this data breach, the details of the
root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and
the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not
occur again. In addition, the Defendant has not taken or provided
therapeutic steps, has failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff
and members of the Class, and has failed to adequately address the
multiple years of identity theft and financial fraud that data
breach victims face, says the suit.
Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Ascension Health provides
health-care related services through its affiliated approximately
134,000 associates, 35,000 providers, and 140 hospitals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
ASCENSION SAINT THOMAS: Patient Files Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Smithson, writing for WSMV4, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Ascension Saint Thomas Hospital
after a data breach within the Ascension hospital group led to
protected information getting into the hands of cybercriminals.
The lawsuit, filed by Yvonne Pratt individually and on behalf of
all others in the situation, alleges Ascension Saint Thomas, as
part of the hospital group, failed to protect its patients'
personal information. The Nashville-based healthcare system is one
of the nation's leading nonprofit hospital groups and holds itself
to protecting the "most vulnerable," according to the lawsuit. It
did not do that with patient information, the lawsuit alleges.
"As a condition of receiving treatment from Ascension, (Ascension
Saint Thomas) required its patients to provide it with their
sensitive (private information), which Ascension promised to
protect from unauthorized disclosure," the lawsuit reads.
"(Ascension) failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the
private information . . . failing to implement industry standards
for data security, and failing to properly train employees on
cybersecurity protocols, resulting in the data breach."
The 44-page lawsuit -- filed on May 24 -- alleges it was the
hospital's negligence that led to the data breach, and it should be
financially responsible for any repercussions for any Tennessee
residents whose data was compromised.
The data breach at Ascension has led to challenges for hospital
staff, including access to patients' records and medical history.
Ascension maintains it is working to return to normal operations.
It has established a website to provide updates to the affected
regions.
"We are hopeful that after the weekend, our patients and clinicians
will see progress across our points of care," the hospital said in
a May 24 statement on its website. "Many of our vendors and
partners have also started the process of reconnecting to our
network and resuming services with Ascension, which should help to
accelerate our overall recovery. Until that time, please know that
our hospitals and facilities remain open and are providing care.
Patients should continue to monitor the regional updates portion of
this webpage for the latest information on a state-by-state
basis."
Ascension thanked hospital clinicians and staff for providing care
under the challenging circumstances. [GN]
AT&T INC: Sutherlin Sues Over Data Breach Claims
------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that class
action lawsuits continue to be filed over an AT&T data breach that
exposed the private information of tens of millions of customers on
the internet, claiming the company failed to protect users' data
and warn them in a timely manner that their information was loose
on the Dark Web.
Tiffany Sutherlin filed one of the most recent AT&T data breach
claims in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on May 27, alleging that the company first became aware of
the massive leak in 2021, but denied the data breach had happened
until March 2024, continuing to expose customers to unnecessary
risk.
The complaint (PDF) seeks class action status to pursue damages on
behalf of Sutherline and millions of other AT&T customers who now
live under the threat of identity fraud, joining several dozen AT&T
data breach lawsuits that have been filed in recent weeks.
The litigation emerged after information about the AT&T data breach
was confirmed on March 30, indicating that customers' names,
addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and email
addresses were exposed. However, the admission came only after
hackers publicly posted the data on the Dark Web.
Sutherlin's lawsuit claims that the cyber-attack, believed to have
been perpetrated by a hacker group known as Shiny Hunters,
compromised the company's systems, allowing them to sell a database
containing AT&T customers' personal identifying information (PII).
Her complaint indicates Sutherlin was informed by a call from AT&T
that her personal data had been obtained by unauthorized third
parties. The data stolen included her name, address, phone number,
date of birth, and Social Security Number. Since then she has had
to make efforts to reduce the impact of the data breach on her life
and finances.
"Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless
manner," the lawsuit states. "Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and
reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice
of the Data Breach."
Sutherlin presents claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach
of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
Pending AT&T Data Breach Lawsuit MDL Hearing
In response to the growing number of AT&T data breach lawsuits, a
motion to transfer (PDF) was filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in April, requesting claims filed
throughout the federal district court system be consolidated for
pretrial proceedings before one judge as part of an AT&T data
breach lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation).
The JPML plans to hear oral arguments tomorrow on whether to create
an AT&T data breach MDL, which has been supported by several
plaintiffs and the telecom company itself.
Given the support of consolidation by several parties on both
sides, it is likely that the JPML will hear few, if any, dissenting
voices calling for the lawsuits to continue through individual
pretrial proceedings.
If the JPML chooses to consolidate the lawsuits before one judge,
pretrial proceedings will be coordinated to avoid duplicative
discovery into common issues in the cases, and the court will
likely establish a bellwether program where a small group of cases
will be prioritized, to help gauge how juries may interpret expert
testimony and evidence likely to be used in thousands of trials.
[GN]
BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL: Pills Contains Carcinogen, Boyer Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERYL BOYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06514 (D.N.J., May 29, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant's duloxetine pills, a generic version of
Cymbalta, contained excessive levels of a carcinogen,
N-nitroso-duloxetine.
Despite failing to meet the standard of United States Pharmacopeia
("USP"), a pharmaceutical quality standards organization, due to
concealed carcinogens, Breckenridge expressly and falsely labelled
its duloxetine pills "USP" on each bottle and in related materials.
Without this false representation of USP compliance, Breckenridge
would not have been able to sell the pills. By falsely representing
the USP compliance of its drugs, Breckenridge was able to sell
adulterated drugs that were unlawful to sell and therefore
economically worthless, says the suit.
BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL INC. operates as a pharmaceutical
marketing, research, and development company. The Company's
products include abbreviated new drug application products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Block, Esq.
Max Marks, Esq.
THE BLOCK FIRM LLC
309 East Paces Ferry Road, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 997-8419
Email: aaron@blockfirmllc.com
max.marks@blockfirmllc.com
- and -
Roshan D. Shah, Esq.
ANDERSON & SHAH, LLC
1040 Broad Street, Suite 304
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
Telephone: (732) 398-6545
Facsimile: (732) 576-0027
Email: rshah@andersonshahlaw.com
BROOKLYN BAGEL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martin Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN MARTIN on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN BAGEL & COFFEE COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03758 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 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 the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
Due to Defendant's failure to build its website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of obtaining location and menu information in
order to visit the bagel store. Accordingly, 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.
Brooklyn Bagel & Coffee Company, Ltd., owns and operates the
website, www.bkbagel.com, which serves as online platform that
offers location and menu information to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BROWN GIRL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Reid Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NADRECA REID, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. BROWN GIRL JANE, INC. (BGJ), Case No.
1:24-cv-04130 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
"Browngirljane.com" to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to take the Fragrance Finder
Quiz and make an online purchase of the Carnivale Eau de Parfum and
the Dawn – Vanilla Bourbon on Browngirljane.com. However, unless
the Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website,
the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to
independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on
Browngirljane.com.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
BGJ's policies, practices, and procedures so that the 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.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
BGJ is a luxury, plant-based wellness collection that centers on
the needs of dynamic women of color.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Allen Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 29, 2024, that on July 9, 2023, an ostensible
shareholder pro se commenced a putative class action captioned
"Allen v. Canopy Growth Corporation, et al.," Case No.
1:23-cv-05891) against the company and two of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its
securities between May 31, 2022 and May 10, 2023.
Said putative class proceedings alleged that the company violated
U.S. federal securities laws by allegedly making false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the "BioSteel"
business unit, the company's internal controls over accounting and
financial reporting, and the company's business, operations, and
prospects. Each proceeding seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
interest, legal fees and costs, and other relief.
On November 30, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated this into "In re Canopy Growth
Securities Litigation," No. 23-cv-04302 and appointed Chen Li as
lead plaintiff. On January 22, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a
first amended complaint against the company and certain of its
current and former officers, alleging claims on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities between November 5, 2021 and June 22, 2023. The lead
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint on March 7, 2024. The lead plaintiff
filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on March 28,
2024 and the company filed a reply in support of its motion to
dismiss on April 11, 2024. The motion to dismiss is pending.
Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation,
incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey
Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production,
distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and
cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes
under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada.
CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Turpel Shareholder Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 29, 2024, that on May 23, 2023, an ostensible
shareholder commenced a putative class action captioned "Turpel v.
Canopy Growth Corporation, et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-043022,
against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its securities
between May 31, 2022 and May 10, 2023.
On November 30, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated this into "In re Canopy Growth
Securities Litigation," No. 23-cv-04302 and appointed Chen Li as
lead plaintiff. On January 22, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a
first amended complaint against the company and certain of its
current and former officers, alleging claims on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities between November 5, 2021 and June 22, 2023. The lead
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint on March 7, 2024. The lead plaintiff
filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on March 28,
2024 and the company filed a reply in support of its motion to
dismiss on April 11, 2024. The motion to dismiss is pending.
Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation,
incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey
Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production,
distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and
cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes
under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada.
CANOPY GROWTH: Kanter Shareholder Suit Transferred to S.D. N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 29, 2024, that on June, 21, 2023, an ostensible
shareholder commenced a putative class action captioned "Kantner v.
Canopy Growth Corporation, et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-04905 against
the Company and two current officers and one former officer in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between June 1, 2021 and May 10, 2023. The
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on July 20, 2023.
On November 30, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated this into "In re Canopy Growth
Securities Litigation," No. 23-cv-04302 and appointed Chen Li as
lead plaintiff. On January 22, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a
first amended complaint against the company and certain of its
current and former officers, alleging claims on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities between November 5, 2021 and June 22, 2023. The lead
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint on March 7, 2024. The lead plaintiff
filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on March 28,
2024 and the company filed a reply in support of its motion to
dismiss on April 11, 2024. The motion to dismiss is pending.
Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation,
incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey
Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production,
distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and
cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes
under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada.
CHAMPAGNE CAMPAIGN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Morgan Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE MORGAN, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. CHAMPAGNE CAMPAIGN INC. d/b/a Une
Femme Wines, Case No. 1:24-cv-04127 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) sues
the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website "unefemmewines.com" to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
The Callie Sparkling Rose and the Project Gather Box on
unefemmewines.com. However, unless the Defendant remedies the
numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class
members will continue to be unable to independently navigate,
browse, use, and complete a transaction on unefemmewines.com.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Champagne Campaign's policies, practices, and procedures so that
The 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.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using
her.
The Defendant offers various women-made sparkling wines and
gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED CARDIOLOGY OF SOUTH JERSEY, P.C., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE
HEALTHCARE, INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED;
UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.; and OPTUM, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00666 (M.D. Tenn., May 29, 2024) is an action arising from
a massive data breach that began on February 12, 2024, when
Blackcat, a group of cybercriminals, accessed Change's networks,
exfiltrated and encrypted the personal information and healthcare
records of millions of individuals and medical practices, and held
the stolen information for ransom.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the
Data Breach, Defendants took the Change platform offline and left
medical practices such as Plaintiff without the ability to find and
verify patient information, manage their billing cycles, and submit
bills to insurance companies. The inability to perform basic
administrative and billing tasks has caused substantial losses for
Plaintiff and other medical practices, including but not limited to
uncollected revenue, loss of income from procedures that could not
be pre-certified, and loss of patients.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC. provides healthcare technology solutions.
The Company offers analytical, connectivity, communication,
payment, consumer engagement, and workflow optimization software
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Roberta Liebenberg, Esq.
Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
Mary L. Russell, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
One South Broad St., Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
gdever@finekaplan.com
mrussell@finekaplan.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9102
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Jack Meyerson, Esq.
Matthew Miller, Esq.
MEYERSON & MILLER
1600 Market Street, Suite 1305
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (609) 703-0414
Email: jmeyerson@meyersonlawfirm.com
mmiller@meyersonlawfirm.com
CONTAINER STORE: Settlement Reached in Hayes Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Container Store Group disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended March 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 30, 2024, that the company was named as
a defendant in a putative class action and representative action
was filed on February 10, 2020 in Santa Clara Superior Court by
Rashon Hayes, a former, hourly-paid employee who was employed from
April 2019 to June 2019. Parties engaged in mediation on February
21, 2024 and reached a preliminary, confidential settlement.
The First Amended Complaint was filed on August 3, 2020 and claims
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, violation of California Business and Professions Code
section 17200, and violation of the California Private Attorneys
General Act.
The lawsuit seeks restitution of unpaid wages for plaintiff and
other class members, pre-judgement interest, appointment of class
administrator, and attorney's fees and costs.
The Container Store Group, Inc. is a holding company, of which a
majority stake was purchased by Leonard Green and Pa that operates
a specialty retail chain company that operates "The Container
Store," which offers storage and organization products, and custom
closets.
DECIPHERA PHARMA: M&A Investigates Merger With ONO Pharmaceutical
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are now investigating:
-- Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCPH ), relating to
its proposed merger with ONO Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Under the
terms of the agreement, ONO will acquire all outstanding shares of
Deciphera common stock for $25.60 per share in cash through a
tender offer. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/deciphera-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- DecisionPoint Systems, Inc. (NYSE: DPSI ), relating to its
proposed merger with Barcoding Holdings, LLC, a portfolio company
of Graham Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, DecisionPoint
stockholders will receive $10.22 per share in cash. Click here for
more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/decisionpoint-systems-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Apartment Income REIT Corp. (NYSE: AIRC ), relating to its
proposed merger with Blackstone Real Estate Partners X. Under the
terms of the agreement, Blackstone will acquire all outstanding
common shares of AIR Communities for $39.12 per share in an
all-cash transaction. Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/apartment-income-reit-corp-2/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Dril-Quip, Inc. (NYSE: DRQ ), relating to its proposed merger
with Innovex Downhole Solutions, Inc.. Under the terms of the
agreement, Dril-Quip stockholders will own approximately 52% of the
combined company on a fully diluted basis. Click here for more
information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dril-quip-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended May 4, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2024, that on February 16, 2024,
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund
filed a purported class action complaint against the company and
certain of its executive officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:24-cv-00196-NR-KT), purportedly on behalf of all
purchasers of its common shares between May 25, 2022 and August 21,
2023.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misrepresentations
and omissions about its business and financial condition, including
the company's inventory, margins, and business prospects. The
complaint seeks relief including unspecified damages and an award
of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
On March 14, 2024, the court entered an order providing that
defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint
was deferred until the court ruled on any motion by a purported
class member to serve as lead plaintiff, and that the parties then
submit a proposed schedule for filing an amended and/or
consolidated complaint or designating the operative complaint and
the timing of defendants' response to the same.
On April 22, 2024, three purported members of the putative class
moved the court for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. One of these
motions was withdrawn on April 23, 2024.
As of May 29, 2024, the court had not issued an order appointing
lead plaintiff.
DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries) is an
omni-channel sporting goods retailer of sports equipment, apparel,
footwear and accessories under the brands "Golf Galaxy," "Public
Lands," "Going Going Gone!," "DICK'S House of Sport, and
"GameChanger."
DOLLAR GENERAL: Edmonds Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 7, 2023, that on November 30, 2023,
respectively, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee in which the plaintiffs allege that the company and
certain of its current and former officers violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store
labor, inventory, pricing and other practices on the company's
financial results and prospects. The case is captioned "Robert J.
Edmonds v. Dollar General Corporation, et al." (Case No.
3:23-cv-01259). This was voluntarily dismissed on January 19,
2024.
The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, equitable/injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer in the United
States with 19,726 stores located in 48 U.S. states and Mexico as
of November 3, 2023, with the greatest concentration of stores in
the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces WCERS Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 29, 2024, that on November 27, 2023, a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in which
the plaintiffs allege that during the putative class periods, the
company and certain of its current and former officers violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged
store labor, inventory, pricing and other practices on the
company's financial results and prospects. The case is captioned
"Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Dollar General
Corporation, et al.," (Case No. 3:23-cv-01250).
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable/injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs. The Edmonds matter was voluntarily dismissed on January 19,
2024. On April 4, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in the Shareholder Securities Litigation. On or before June
17, 2024, lead plaintiff must file a consolidated amended
complaint.
Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer in the United
States with 19,726 stores located in 48 U.S. states and Mexico as
of November 3, 2023, with the greatest concentration of stores in
the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.
DOLLARAMA INC: Court Authorizes Suit Over 'Recyclable' Bag Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RetailBoss reports that the Superior Court of Quebec authorized a
class action lawsuit concerning reusable plastic bags sold at
various retail stores across the province. The lawsuit targets
several major retailers, including Dollarama, Societe des alcools
du Quebec (SAQ), Rona Inc., Lowe's, Metro Inc., McKesson Canada
(Uniprix pharmacies), Toys "R" Us, Costco, and Giant Tiger. The
core allegation, as reported by CBC is that these companies have
been misleading consumers by advertising their reusable plastic
bags as recyclable when, in fact, they are not recyclable within
Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.
Joey Zukran of LPC Avocats, who is leading the case, highlighted
that one of Quebec's largest recycling facilities, Tricentris,
confirmed these bags cannot be recycled. Zukran emphasized that the
bags' rigid nature prevents them from being processed as recyclable
materials, thus ending up in landfills instead. According to
Zukran, this misrepresentation constitutes greenwashing -- a
deceptive practice where companies falsely claim their products are
environmentally friendly.
The class action lawsuit is significant, potentially impacting
millions of Quebec residents who purchased these bags between April
16, 2019, and the present. The legal proceedings underscore a
broader environmental concern: while reusable bags are intended to
reduce waste, their actual environmental footprint can be
substantial if they are not genuinely recyclable or reused
sufficiently.
This lawsuit comes amid growing scrutiny over the environmental
impact of reusable plastic bags. Although they are designed to
reduce single-use plastic waste, studies have shown that many
reusable bags have a higher carbon footprint due to the thicker
plastic used in their production. If not reused multiple times,
these bags can be more harmful to the environment than their
single-use counterparts.
According to CBC, the proliferation of reusable bags has led to
unintended consequences. Environmental researcher Tony Walker
pointed out that the ban on single-use plastic bags in Canada has
accumulated reusable bags in homes and, eventually, landfills,
exacerbating the waste problem they were meant to solve.
The class action lawsuit against these major retailers aims to
address these issues by holding companies accountable for
misleading claims and pushing for more transparent and sustainable
practices. As the case progresses, it will likely draw attention to
the need for stricter regulations and better consumer education
regarding reusable plastic bags' true recyclability and
environmental impact. [GN]
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in DeBose Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2024, that discovery
is ongoing in the DeBose class suit.
On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rashad DeBose filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the
purported class members' names and personas to promote paid
subscriptions to the Company's Hoovers product website without
consent, in violation of the Ohio right of publicity statute and
Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness.
On March 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint.
The motion was briefed, and in November 2022 the Court requested
supplemental briefing.
Supplemental briefing was completed in January 2023.
The Court has not yet set a date for oral argument.
Discovery is ongoing.
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting,
collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.
EAST WEST TEA: Kaatz Sues Over Pesticide-Contaminated Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Kaatz, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. East West Tea Company, LLC d/b/a
Yogi Tea, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-03996 (S.D.N.Y., May 24,
2024) alleges that the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and
misleadingly labeled and marketed its Yogi Echinacea Immune Support
Tea product to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting
and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that consumption
of this product may increase the risk of ingesting pesticides.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's packaging markets this
product as providing "Immune Support;" however, it fails to
disclose that the product contains, or is at the risk of
containing, pesticides, which undermines the "Immune Support"
claim. Moreover, the Defendant does not list or mention pesticides
anywhere on the product's packaging or labeling. The Defendant's
own recall and other testing confirmed and demonstrated the
presence of pesticides in its product. The Defendant issued a
recall of its product on March 12, 2024, because pesticide residues
were detected above action levels.
Headquartered in Eugene, OR, East West Tea Company, LLC d/b/a Yogi
Tea, manufactures and markets tea products in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Bialic Suit Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
MARK BIALIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENPHASE ENERGY, INC.; BADRINARAYANAN
KOTHANDARAMAN; and MANDY YANG, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03216
(N.D. Cal., May 29, 2024) is an action on behalf of all investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase securities between
February 7, 2023 and April 25, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws.
According to the complaint, on April 25, 2023 Enphase issued a
press release announcing its first quarter earnings, where it
announced revenue in the United States had decreased by
approximately 9 percent attributing it to macroeconomic conditions.
Additionally, the Defendants put out a weak second quarter outlook
for 2023 where revenue was estimated to be within the range of $700
million to $750 million.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Enphase's revelation.
The price of Enphase's common stock declined dramatically. From a
closing market price of $220.60 per share on April 25, 2023,
Enphase's stock price fell to $163.83 per share on April 26, 2023,
a decline of nearly 26 percent in the span of just a single day,
says the suit.
ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. manufactures solar energy equipment. The
Company offers home and commercial solar and storage solutions.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Email: aapton@zlk.com
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Verification Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that data analytics
giant Equifax (EFX.N), opens new tab has been accused by a pair of
home mortgage lenders of monopolizing the market for electronic
income and employment verification services, leading to higher
prices.
Greystone Mortgage and First Financial Lending filed the proposed
class action, opens new tab in Philadelphia federal court, alleging
Equifax had a "stranglehold" over a verification process that is a
critical part of consumer finance.
Lenders, property managers and others rely on their quick ability
to electronically verify an applicant's income and employment for
mortgages, car loans and rental apartment agreements, according to
the lawsuit. Manually calling employers can be slow.
The lawsuit alleged Equifax, through its Equifax Workforce
Solutions unit, has violated antitrust law through exclusive
contracts and buying up would-be competitors. The industry
domination, according to the lawsuit, has allowed Equifax to charge
for its services "far higher than a competitive market would
bear."
Atlanta-based Equifax and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case was brought on behalf of a proposed class of at least tens
of thousands of purchasers of Equifax's income and employment
services.
The lawsuit said income and employment verification increasingly
has driven revenue for Equifax, which is best-known for providing
credit history reports. The lawsuit said profit from its
verification business was now nearly $2 billion annually.
Equifax's multiyear, exclusive agreements with payroll software
providers and large employers have denied competitors' access to
essential data inputs, "making it impossible for rivals to build
databases of sufficient size and scale," the lawsuit claimed.
Equifax "spent billions of dollars acquiring companies that might
present a risk of competition to its monopoly," the plaintiffs
said.
The lawsuit demanded unspecified monetary damages, and it seeks an
injunction to stop Equifax's alleged anti-competitive practices.
The case is Greystone Mortgage Inc and First Financial Lending LLC
v. Equifax Workforce Solutions LLC and Equifax Inc, U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:24-cv-02260.
For plaintiffs: Katie Beran and Brian Ratner of Hausfeld; Bruce
Gerstein and David Rochelson of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher; and
Joshua Grabar of Grabar Law Office
For defendant: No appearance yet [GN]
FASTLY INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastly,
Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY). The lawsuit alleges
that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including
allegations that:
(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, Fastly was unlikely to meet its own previously
issued revenue guidance for FY 2024; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's financial position and/or
prospects were overstated.
If you bought Fastly shares between February 15, 2024 and May 1,
2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are
encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer,
Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/fastly/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is July 23, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
FASTLY INC: Kula Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEN KULA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. FASTLY, INC., TODD NIGHTINGALE, and RONALD
W. KISLING, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03170 (N.D. Cal., May 24,
2024) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of its top officials.
Plaintiff Kula brings this federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Fastly securities
between February 15, 2024 and May 1, 2024, both dates inclusive.
Throughout the Class period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that 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. Among other things, the
Defendants also failed to disclose that the Company was unlikely to
meet its own previously issued revenue guidance for FY 2024, says
the suit.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Fastly is a Delaware
corporation that provides cloud computing services. Its common
stock trades in an efficient market on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol "FSLY." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-301-3335
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Kenny Suit Over Undisclosed Finance Charge
-------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER KENNY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No.
3:24-cv-00402-MHL (E.D. Va., May 31, 2024) contends that Fifth
Third Bank and its predecessor, Dividend Solar Finance LLC, failed
to disclose finance charges to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers, in violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act.
On June 1, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased a solar panel system from
Nexus Energy Systems. The Plaintiff was told that Fifth Third Bank
was making her a loan in the amount of $70,661 at an Annual
Percentage Rate (APR) of 3.99%. Fifth Third Bank, however, did not
disburse $70,661 to the installer. This was because the solar panel
system and installation did not actually cost $70,661. Rather, the
represented loan amount included a substantial undisclosed finance
charge—or a hidden fee, the Plaintiff alleges.
That hidden fee was baked into the represented loan amount in
accordance with Fifth Third Bank's practice of inflating the loan
amounts of solar power systems purchased by consumers from
installers, the Plaintiff adds.
Fifth Third Bank's Loan and Security Agreement falsely stated: (i)
that the $70,661 amount was solely for the design and installation
of the solar power system; and (ii) that the disclosed interest
would be charged only on principal disbursed to the installer. The
structure of Plaintiff's loan meant that she was paying two finance
charges: (i) the undisclosed more-than-$26,0000 hidden fee; and
(ii) the disclosed finance charge of $42,265.42, which was based on
the bloated principal loan amount. Because Fifth Third Bank failed
to disclose the hidden fee, the Plaintiff was not apprised of the
true cost of her decision to borrow money, the suit asserts.
Fifth is an American bank holding company headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
matt@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
Thomas Domonoske, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
850 W. Market Street, Suite 140
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Telephone: (540) 889-0975
E-mail: tom@clalegal.com
FLAGSTAR BANK: Gardner Appeals Case Dismissal Order to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs VERONICA GARDNER, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion and Order dated December 13, 2023, and
Opinion and Order and Judgment dated April 16, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled VERONICA GARDNER and CALVIN MORGAN on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-12061-GAD-DRG, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan at Detroit.
The Plaintiff filed this suit on July 31, 2020 on behalf of
themselves and classes of all similarly situated consumers against
Defendant Flagstar Bank, arising from (a) its practice of assessing
and collecting Overdraft Fees on items that did not actually
overdraw the account; and (b) its practice of assessing more than
one insufficient funds fee on the same item. These practices are
barred by Flagstar Bank's contract, says the suit.
On August 23, 2021, Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendant's November 6, 2020
motion to dismiss.
On March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Veronica Gardner and Calvin Morgan
filed a second amended class action complaint.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for ratification and additionally, or
in the alternative, to join D&C Enterprise Group LLC as a party on
July 5, 2023. The Defendant responded on July 17, 2023, and
Plaintiffs replied on July 24, 2023. The Plaintiffs also filed a
pleading entitled, "Plaintiffs Objections To Magistrate Judges
Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Production Of Plaintiff
Morgans Account Documents From Defendant Flagstar Bank." The
Defendants responded on October 13, 2023, and Plaintiffs replied on
October 20, 2023. The Court held oral argument for the Motion and
Objections on December 11, 2023. The Motion and Objections are
fully briefed.
On December 13, 2023, Judge Drain signed an Order wherein
Plaintiffs' motion for ratification was denied, and their
objections were overruled.
On April 16, 2024, Judge Drain entered an Opinion and Order wherein
Flagstar's June 22, 2023 motion for summary judgment was granted in
its entirety, and Plaintiffs' second amended complaint was
dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned as Veronica Gardner, et al. v.
Flagstar Bank, FSB, Case No. 24-1436, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 16, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants VERONICA GARDNER and CALVIN MORGAN, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Emily Hughes, Esq.
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Defendant-Appellee FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, nka Flagstar Bank, N.A., is
represented by:
Caroline Brooks Giordano, Esq.
Sonal Hope Mithani, Esq.
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE
101 N. Main Street, Seventh Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 663-2445
FRANK ANTHONY'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Agudelo Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADALBERTO TABARES AGUDELO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANK ANTHONY'S GOURMET MARKET,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. (Mass. Cmmw., May 29, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Agudelo was employed by the Defendant as a kitchen
staff.
FRANK ANTHONY'S GOURMET MARKET, LLC features a bakery, juice bar,
salad bar, and deli along with homemade daily specials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Yasi, Esq.
YASI & YASI, P.C.
2 Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 741-0400
- and -
Paul F.X. Yasi, Esq.
YASI & YASI, P.C.
2 Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 741-0400
GAMESTOP CORP: Page Appeals Dismissal of Deceptive Ads Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff RYAN PAGE has filed an appeal from the District Court's
order dated April 16, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled RYAN PAGE,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. GAMESTOP CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01970, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Akron.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
filed on October 9, 2023, alleges claims against the Defendant for
unjust enrichment and for violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act and other consumer protection laws in connection with
the Defendant's deceptive and untruthful promise to provide "free
shipping" to online consumers.
By falsely marketing that it offers "free shipping" to consumers,
then adding a line item charge for "Shipping & Handling", GameStop
deceives consumers into making product purchases they otherwise
would not make. In addition, by unfairly obscuring its shipping and
handling charges, GameStop deceives consumers and gains an unfair
upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true fees
online, says the suit.
On January 4, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
case and compel arbitration.
On April 16, Judge Dan Aaron Polster signed an Opinion and Order
stating concluding that a valid contract exists between Plaintiff
and GameStop. Mr. Page, through his conduct, assented to the Pro
Terms & Conditions, including the mandatory arbitration provision.
Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Page v. GameStop Corp.,
Case No. 24-3428, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, filed on May 15, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant
brief is due on June 24, 2024 and Appellee brief is due on July 24,
2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant RYAN PAGE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE
14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Defendant-Appellee GAMESTOP CORP. is represented by:
Michael Kevin Farrell, Esq.
BAKERHOSTETLER
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114-3485
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Faces Wong Suit Over Emergen-C False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN WONG and JIMY RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS
(US) LLC d/b/a Haleon, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00943-WQH-AHG (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2024) alleges that
Emergen-C dietary supplements (Raspberry, Super Orange, Tangerine,
Cranberry Pomegranate, Pink Lemonade, Strawberry-Kiwi, and Tropical
flavors), which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised,
distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely
advertised because they contain artificial flavoring.
The front label (or "principal display panel") of all flavors of
the Products prominently state that they contain "Natural Flavors"
and "Natural Fruit Flavors," using bolded type and graphical
call-outs or insets to highlight these claims. All flavors of the
Products use depictions of fruits on the front label to reinforce
the natural flavoring claim that is being made. A reasonable
consumer would understand from these textual and graphical elements
on the labels that the Products contain
only natural flavorings, the Plaintiffs say.
All of the Products contain an ingredient known as "malic acid"
which is used as a flavoring in the Products. The form of malic
acid used in these Products is artificial. As a direct and
proximate cause of the Defendant's breach of express warranty, the
Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured and harmed because:
(a) they would not have purchased the Products on the same terms if
they knew the truth about the Products' unnatural ingredients; (b)
they paid a price premium based on Defendant's express warranties;
and (c) the Products do not have the characteristics, uses, or
benefits that were promised, the suit asserts.
On Jan. 9, 2024, Wong purchased the Raspberry and Super Orange
flavor Products from a Costco store in Antioch, California.
On Jan. 20, 2024, Mr. Ruiz purchased the Super Orange and Tangerine
flavors from a Costco store in Chula Vista, California.
Haleon formulates, manufactures, and sells Emergen-C, a drink mix
powder that purports to contain 1,000 mg of Vitamin C per
serving.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
GLJ TWO: Raum Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN RAUM, BRENNAN ALDOUS, and NICK JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GLJ TWO, LLC d/b/a
United States of Freight (USF), a Florida limited liability
company, and DANIEL O'SULLIVAN, an individual, Case No.
9:24-cv-80686 (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
During Plaintiffs' employment with USF, the Plaintiffs worked 55 to
60 hours per week but were never compensated at the statutory rate
of time and one-half. Additionally, USF failed to properly apprise
the Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seeks class-wide relief on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees who were subjected to the
Defendants' common and illegal pay practices and policies of
failing to pay their employees compensation for hours worked over
40 per workweek.
Mr. Raum was employed by the Defendants as a freight broker from
2018 to March 15, 2024.
The Plaintiff Aldous was employed by Defendants as a freight broker
from 2019 to December 2022.
The Plaintiff Johnson was employed by Defendants from July 2019 to
November 2022.
USF is in the freight brokering business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard D. Tuschman, Esq.
RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A.
12555 Orange Drive, 2nd Floor
Davie, FL 33330
Telephone: (954) 369-1050
Facsimile: (954) 380-8938
E-mail: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com
assistant@gtemploymentlawyers.com
- and -
Mark J. Beutler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. BEUTLER, P.A.
9400 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 600
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 487-0942
Facsimile: (786) 513-4651
E-mail: mjb@mjbpa.com
jmm@mjbpa.com
GREAT WALL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Fernandez Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GREAT WALL 837, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04171 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.greatwallyonkers.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.
The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he attempted multiple
times, most recently on April 12, 2024 to access the Defendant's
Website from his home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's
products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal
access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to
the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus
denied the benefit of making the online order that the Plaintiff
wished to acquire from the Website, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the suit asserts.
Mr. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Great Wall offers a wide array of authentic Chinese food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Wooten Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LELAND WOOTEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GREYLOCK MCKINNON ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-11429 (D. Mass., May 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to adequately secure and safeguard his and at least 341,650
total individuals' personally identifying information and protected
health information.
The compromised information includes names, mailing addresses,
phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security or Taxpayer
Identification numbers, driver's license or state identification
numbers, Medicare Beneficiary Identifiers (MBIs) or Health
Insurance Claim Numbers, healthcare provider and prescription
information, health insurance claims and policy and subscriber
information, health benefits and enrollment information, and
medical records and medical histories, including medical
conditions, among other potentially sensitive, private, and
confidential data, the suit claims.
On May 30, 2023, Greylock lost control over this highly sensitive
and confidential PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and the Class Members
in a massive and preventable data breach apparently perpetrated by
cybercriminals. Despite learning of the ransomware Data Breach on
May 30, 2023, Greylock only began notifying some impacted persons
almost nine months later, around February 23, 2024. Even with this
long lag, Greylock still had little grasp on the true scope of the
cyberattack. The bulk of the Data Breach notices issued about six
weeks later, around April 5, 2024—more than ten months after
Greylock learned of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff asserts.
This extreme delay exacerbated the damages and risks to the
Plaintiff and Class Members, and violated various state data breach
notification statutes and rules promulgated under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Plaintiff
adds.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se,
invasion of privacy, breach of third-party beneficiary contract,
unjust enrichment or quasi-contract, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks: (i)
actual damages, economic damages, statutory damages, and nominal
damages; (ii) punitive damages; (iii) fees and costs of litigation;
(iv) injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably
sufficient practices to safeguard PII and PHI in the Defendant's
custody, care, and control in order to prevent incidents like the
Data Breach from recurring in the future and for Greylock to
provide long-term, comprehensive identity theft protective services
to Plaintiff and Class Members; and (v) such other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Greylock is a Massachusetts-based consulting firm that provides
expert economic analysis and litigation support services in civil
litigation matters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
imcloughlin@shulaw.com
pvallely@shulaw.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
HAIR CUTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
BeautyCon reports that eight African-American women have filed a
federal class action against Hair Cuttery's parent company, saying
the salon chain discriminates against black customers.
The move is the latest development in a lawsuit filed this year by
Paulette Harris, who said the salon tried to charge her more
because she is black.
In that suit, Harris said that she was told by a Hair Cuttery
employee that she had to pay $8 extra for her shampoo because of
her "ethnic" hair. Harris also said that she was asked to pay in
advance because, she said the staff told her, "ethnic" people tend
to leave without paying.
In the class action request filed this week in U.S. District Court,
other Baltimore-area women recounted similar experiences at local
Hair Cuttery stores.
All say they were overcharged for haircuts, paying as much as
almost four times the listed price. Some reported racially
insensitive comments made by staff members at the salons.
Hair Cuttery is a walk-in unisex chain with 800 stores, according
to its Web site.
Its corporate owner, Virginia-based Creative Hairdressers Inc., has
denied any discrimination, according to court papers.
Hair Cuttery lawyer Steven R. Semler noted in court papers that
once Harris was told the cost for her haircut would be $21 rather
than $13, she called the company headquarters' customer service
department, which instructed the salon to charge the lower price.
He wrote that the company denies customers were told to pay ahead
of time.
Harris' lawyer, Barry R. Glazer, said he was not surprised that
more women came forward after publicity emerged about Harris'
case.
"The incident was so outrageous," he said. "After speaking and
dealing with Paulette, it occurred to me that this was probably
extensive."
Danielle Peterson of Columbia said she was regularly charged more
for haircuts than the $13 price listed for all customers.
Lillian Blackman of Baltimore said she was charged $48 for the $13
service and was told by the manager that the price was higher
because "products are more expensive" for African- Americans'
hair.
Johnette Smith paid $20 for a service that costs white customers
$10, she said. The employee who shampooed her hair put on "heavy
Playtex gloves," according to the suit, saying that she was
allergic to the shampoo.
Smith said she had watched the hairdresser shampoo white customers
without the gloves, according to the lawsuit.
The class action suit also names as plaintiffs "other
African-American women similarly charged fees in excess of the list
price based upon their race."
Harris' case was originally filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court.
The company requested that it be moved to federal court, where
juries are thought to be less sympathetic to plaintiffs.
If a federal judge approves the class action, other women who say
they have had similar experiences might be able to share in any
damage awards.
The lawsuit is asking for $100,000 in compensatory damages and
$450,000 in punitive damages for each plaintiff. [GN]
HAMPSHIRE HOUSE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Makovic Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KUJTIM MAKOVIC, MUSAJA MAKOVIC, and SELMAN HAXHIMURATI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HAMPSHIRE HOUSE LLC and ANDREW HEILMANN KERNAN, as an individual
and in his capacity as Board President of HAMPSHIRE HOUSE LLC,
EINSIDLER MANAGEMENT INC., and EINSIDLER MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC.
and DONALD EINSIDLER as an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-03937
(E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiffs' overtime wages for all hours regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week at a wage rate of one and a half times
the regular wage, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Kujtim Makovic was regularly required to work 62 to 63
hours per week. However, the Plaintiff Kujtim Makovic was paid by
the Defendants a flat weekly rate of $850.00 per week for all hours
worked. Furthermore, the Plaintiff Kujtim Makovic was not
compensated at all for out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of
$7,300.00 for the payment of internet of the cameras in the
property and for the purchase of painting materials which was not
reimbursed by the Defendants.
Plaintiff Kujtim Makovic was employed by the Defendants as a
superintendent while performing related miscellaneous duties for
the Defendants, such as cleaning, plumbing, electrical works, and
being the doorman’s handyman, from December 2019 until December
2023.
Plaintiff Musaja Makovic was employed by the Defendants as a
doorman while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants, such as cleaning, accommodating the guests, receiving
packages, and maintenance of the building, from August 2020 until
December 2023.
Plaintiff Selman Haxhimurati was employed by the Defendants as a
superintendent while performing related miscellaneous duties, such
as cleaning, handling the water and boiling system, and
maintenance of the building, from May 2010 until May 2018.
Hampshire House is an apartment building and hotel.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
HANNA HOLDINGS: Faces Davis Suit Over Anticompetitive Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HANNA HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02374 (E.D. Pa.,
May 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for agreeing, combining, and
conspiring to impose, implement, and enforce anticompetitive
restraints that reduce price competition in the markets for
buyer-agent services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, state antitrust laws,
consumer protection laws, and common law.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's unlawful,
anticompetitive conduct causes America's home buyers to pay
inflated commissions for broker services they misrepresent are
free, to pay inflated prices for the homes they purchase, and to
receive reduced quality broker services.
For decades, home buyers across America have been unwittingly
paying too much for, and receiving too little from, services
offered to them by the Defendant and other real estate agent
members of National Association of Realtors. Each of the local
realtor associations that own and operate the NAR Multiple Listing
Services (MLSs) agreed to, complied with, and implemented the
"Buyer-Agent Commission Rule," which requires a seller-broker to
specify the blanket, unilateral commission to be paid to the
buyer-agent upon sale in terms of a definite dollar amount or
percentage of the sale price. In the absence of the Rule, buyers
rather than sellers would negotiate buyer-agent commissions, and
brokers would compete with each other by offering lower commission
rates and/or higher quality services, the lawsuit claims.
Absent the conspiracy, the Plaintiff and the other class members
would have paid lower prices for their homes and lower commissions,
and the Plaintiff would have received improved services in
negotiating and reducing the purchase prices of their homes, the
lawsuit adds.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's past and continuing
violations, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured in
their business and property.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the classes, seeks treble
damages, injunctive relief, and the costs of this lawsuit,
including attorneys' fees.
In 2022, Mr. Davis purchased a home in Greensboro, North Carolina
using a buyer-agent broker from Allen Tate Real Estate, LLC, a
subsidiary of Defendant Hanna Holdings, Inc. The home Mr. Davis
purchased was listed on the Triad Multiple Listing Service.
Hanna is a privately-held real estate brokerage company and a
member of NAR.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
mklenov@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Noelle Forde, Esq.
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
nforde@lowey.com
achristina@lowey.com
HEALTH AND LIFE: Yang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health and Life
Organization, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Pang Yang,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Health and Life Organization, Inc., Case No. 24CV007708 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 18, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
[BN]
HERSHEY CO: Stanzione Sues Over Pirate's Booty Snacks' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN STANZIONE and VICTORIA TYSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-03913 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) contends that the Defendant
markets its Pirate's Booty snacks in a systematically misleading
manner by misrepresenting that the Product have no artificial
colors or preservatives.
The Defendant's representation is featured on the Product's
labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase
foods that are free from artificial preservatives. However, this
Representation is false and/or misleading because the Products
contain citric acid—a well-known preservative commonly used in
food products. The Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of
its deceptive conduct, the suit says.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated purchasers for violation of New York General
Business Law sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and
unjust enrichment.
Ms. Stanzione has purchased the Products on numerous occasions over
the prior year. She typically purchases the Products from a Target
store in Brooklyn, New York, with her most recent purchase taking
place in January 2024.
Ms. Tyson purchased the Product from a Walmart store in Valley
Stream, New York in July 2023.
Hershey is an American manufacturer of food products, chiefly
chocolate and sugar-based confections.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Alec Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
IMMUNOVANT INC: Court Dismisses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Immunovant, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 29, 2024, that on April 5, 2024, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered
judgment in favor of defendants in a February 2021 putative
securities class action complaint filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers in the alleging
violations Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
Following appointment of lead plaintiff and extensive briefing by
the parties, including multiple amendments to the complaint and
motions to dismiss, on March 29, 2024, the court dismissed the
operative complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs did not appeal the court's judgment, so the litigation
is now concluded.
Immunovant, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
based in New York.
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Inflating Loyal Customers Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Atkin, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm is
launching a class action against a national insurer claiming they
used a computer algorithm to inflate premiums for "loyal"
customers.
The insurance brands in the action include the Royal Automobile
Club of Victoria, the State Government Insurance Office in Western
Australia, and the State Government Insurance Commission in South
Australia.
What's next? Class action law firm Slater and Gordon is also
investigating a possible class action involving NRMA customers.
A framed photo with NRL legend Billy Slater takes pride of place in
Kerry Reece's living room.
She's been a devoted Melbourne Storm supporter since his
premiership glory days at the club.
But that same instinct for loyalty hasn't always served her well.
Kerry kept her home insurance with the one company for decades,
figuring "You stay loyal because you think they're going to be
loyal to you".
As her premiums rose and the cost of living began to bite, Ms Reece
found herself cutting back on small luxuries.
"We don't go anywhere," she said.
"I can't tell you the last time we went to a movie. I think it was
Titanic."
Now a lawsuit filed against the insurance giant IAG is alleging the
company deliberately targeted customers like Ms Reece --
specifically because they were loyal.
The central claim is that a computer algorithm was used to inflate
premiums for customers considered more likely to stay, a practice
dubbed "loyalty uplift".
Those increases may have had nothing to do with the person's risk
profile or the cost of providing the insurance.
Customers likely to leave were allegedly given smaller premium
increases than those who were expected to stay.
Ben Hardwick from law firm Slater and Gordon suspects millions of
customers could have been badly misled.
"They were [allegedly] giving them a discount for their loyalty
when in fact that discount was meaningless.
"The insurance company was jacking up the base premium before the
discount was applied, with the effect the discount really had no
value at all," Mr Hardwick said.
Class action alleges insurer misconduct
On its website Insurance Australia Group (IAG) says it is the
largest general insurance company in Australia and New Zealand and
its best-known brands include NRMA and CGU.
IAG's insurance profits sit at more than $800 million -- a jump of
almost 40 per cent in the last financial year.
The lawsuit alleges IAG customers in Victoria, Western Australia,
and South Australia were systematically misled about their home and
contents insurance over the six years to 2024.
The insurance brands involved in the alleged misconduct are the
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV), the State Government
Insurance Office (SGIO) in Western Australia, and the State
Government Insurance Commission (SGIC) in South Australia.
It involves two subsidiary companies Insurance Australia Limited
and Insurance Manufacturers of Australia, which is 70 per cent
owned by IAG and 30 per cent by RACV.
IAG customers will be automatically notified if they are eligible
for the class action at a later stage.
That will be helpful for people like Kerry Reece who don't know if
they've been allegedly targeted by the insurer because of their
loyalty.
Slater and Gordon is also investigating a possible class action
involving NRMA customers.
'A kick in the guts'
Ms Reece first became an RACV member in 1984.
Her recent renewal notice said she has "gold membership" status,
which entitled her to a 15 per cent discount, a multi-policy
discount, and a no-claim bonus equating to hundreds of dollars in
savings.
She was shocked by the allegations her insurer used a "loyalty
uplift," on some customers.
It is unclear if she was personally affected.
"I think it's disgusting," she said.
Mr Hardwick said his firm would seek to prove customers were misled
about pricing discounts, which meant in some cases they weren't
actually receiving cheaper insurance.
"We believe that many of those people could be entitled to over
$1,000 in compensation (each)," he said.
IAG is also being sued by the corporate cop, ASIC, over allegations
it misled home insurance customers about the loyalty discounts they
received involving the same insurance brands.
However, IAG denied the allegations and is defending the case.
Customers denied an 'informed choice'
Slater and Gordon says the insurance giant was in breach of the
industry code and misused its dominant position against its
customers.
"If these customers had known the full story, they could have made
an assessment, "Should I shop around and go to another insurance
company?"
"But these customers were duped, they were getting their renewal
notices each year and those notices were saying, "You're a loyal
customer, I'm going to give you a reward for that"." Mr Hardwick
said.
The lawsuit says the insurance giant broke the law by engaging in
misleading and deceptive conduct and what's known as unconscionable
conduct.
Jeannie Paterson, an expert in consumer law from Melbourne
University said insurer conduct was "murky territory", and there
was considerable uncertainty about exactly what unconscionable
conduct means.
It could include a company taking advantage of unequal bargaining
power including unequal access to information, and failing to take
into account the interests of consumers, especially if some of
those consumers were at "a special disadvantage".
"(A special disadvantage is) a customer who is obviously acting
under language constraints, understanding constraints, emotional
constraints, charging that person an exorbitant price when that
person is clearly unable to make a decision in their own best
interest is a classic case of unconscionable conduct," Professor
Paterson said.
Insurance Australia Group told the ABC in a statement: "We are
dedicated to providing the best possible service and support for
our customers."
"The Class Action . . . ' relates to the allegations in the ASIC
legal proceedings filed in August last year about SGIO, SGIC and
RACV home insurance products. We are defending those proceedings."
"We maintain we have delivered on loyalty promises made to
customers and will also defend this Class Action."
It has denied the allegations made in the ASIC lawsuit -- including
that computer modelling was used to deprive customers of the full
benefit of loyalty discounts.
In a submission to that case, it has also rebuked the suggestion
consumers were harmed.
ASIC has been increasingly active in monitoring insurer conduct.
In a report from June last year, the regulator said IAG would repay
$447.2 million to 4.25 million customers for pricing failures since
2018.
In total, the sector was forced to refund more than $815 million
for overcharging.
Class actions can play an important role in holding corporations
accountable for illegal conduct because while the cost of
litigation is too high for most individuals to consider -- it can
make sense as a group, according to Professor Paterson.
"In that sense, they're really effective and part of the toolkit
for enforcing important law that's supposed to protect
individuals."
However, class actions can result in lengthy, costly court battles,
and proving the financial harm can be difficult.
Some people wind up disappointed by the amount they receive after a
settlement.
"Consumers often feel a moral outrage that they've been misled or
taken advantage of and unfortunately, that's not what the law
compensates," Professor Paterson said.
Ms Reece and her husband will be watching the case closely.
Their house and vehicle remain insured with RACV.
The lawsuit has made them question if their loyalty has been
exploited.
"If I had known (then) when it was coming up for renewal every
year, I would have definitely gone on the phone and shopped
around," she said. [GN]
JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Ridge Sues Over Illegal Sewer Impact Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
RIDGE CREST HOMES, LLC, an Alabama Limited Liability Company, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated as is more
particularly set out below v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, a county
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00696-GMB (N.D. Ala., May 30, 2024) alleges that
Jefferson County has illegally and unlawfully charged and collected
the sewer impact fees from Ridge Crest and other builders,
contractors, developers, owners, and citizens of Jefferson County
in violation of the United States Constitution.
The Plaintiff contends that fees charged by Jefferson County are
unconstitutional because the fees bear no nexus or proportionality
to the impact of any development or construction for which the fees
are charged. The fees are also unconstitutional because Jefferson
County does not use the impact fees so imposed and collected for
the construction and erection of capital improvements or other
impacts to the sewer system it owns and operates.
Ridge Crest alleges that the sewer impact fees imposed and
collected by Jefferson County are comingled in the general funds of
Jefferson County, are not set aside for impacts to the sewer
system.
By using the impact fees to raise revenue for its general fund, and
not assessing impact fees based on the specific effect of a
particular development but instead blanketly assessing arbitrary
rates upon ALL developments, Jefferson County is imposing an
unconstitutional fee. The sewer impact fees are thus an
unconstitutional taking under the 5th Amendment of the United
States Constitution and all monies obtained by Jefferson County as
sewer impact fees over the past six (6) years should be disgorged,
plus interest, and a new methodology for enacting such fees should
be employed via injunction, the suit asserts.
Ridge Crest is and has been in the business of residential
construction and development in Jefferson County, Alabama.
Jefferson is the most populous county in the U.S. state of Alabama,
located in the central portion of the state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
The Kress Building
301 Nineteenth Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0557
Facsimile: (205) 314-0757
E-mail: dgp@wigginschilds.com
dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
- and -
Jesse P. Evans III, Esq.
Martin W. Evans, Esq.
Albert C. Boykin III, Esq.
EVANS & EVANS
2001 Park Place North, Suite 540
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 545-8085
E-mail: je@eefirm.com
me@eefirm.com
bb@eefirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Patients Sues on Fraudulent Chapter 11 Filings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that a group of
cancer patients are bringing a class action lawsuit against Johnson
& Johnson. The suit alleges J&J's Chapter 11 attempts are
calculated tactics to avoid thousands of pending talcum powder
lawsuits.
The five plaintiffs filed their suit -- Murphy et al. v. LTL
Management Inc. et al., Case No.3:24-CV-06320 -- in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit aims to
represent any or all of the more than 50,000 people with pending
J&J claims.
Defendants include LTL Management Inc., the subsidiary created to
hold and manage asbestos-contaminated talc legal claims against
J&J. Additionally J&J corporate entities are named, as are J&J
Chief Executive Officer Joaquin Duato.
Kenvue Chief Executive Officer Thibaut Mongon is also named as a
defendant. Kenvue is a consumer health company J&J launched in 2022
as a new corporate identity for brands including Tylenol,
Neutrogena, Listerine, and Band-Aid.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs released a statement arguing
J&J has been sidestepping its obligations to people exposed to
asbestos from its products. Asbestos is the primary cause of
mesothelioma. And recent National Institutes of Health research
links asbestos in talc to ovarian cancer.
Andy Birchfield, representing the plaintiffs argued: "The bad faith
that the courts found in ruling against J&J in the two previous
bankruptcies applies to every action the company has taken during
the past three years. The individuals bringing this class action
are shining a bright light on the entire series of dubious,
unlawful and hypocritical ploys J&J has been following, and they're
saying enough is enough."
J&J's Recent Proposed Settlement Part of Third Bankruptcy Effort
The plaintiffs' asbestos lawyers argue J&J's latest move to settle
pending litigation is "a dark game of chess with this country's
financial and judicial systems." However, Erik Haas, J&J's global
vice president of litigation, asserted in a statement to USA Today
the class action lawsuit is a "Hail Mary pass."
Haas claims the lawsuit is an attempt to block J&J's latest
proposed bankruptcy settlement. Earlier this month, the company
agreed to pay $6.475 billion to settle all current and future
claims that its talc-based products cause cancer.
The proposal could be the first step toward a potential bankruptcy
attempt No. 3 for the company. A judge denied both previous
bankruptcy attempts, ruling J&J wasn't in financial distress.
Haas said in his statement: "Why are they so desperate to stop the
[settlement] vote? Our focus has been and will remain reaching a
full, fair and final resolution of this litigation, and allowing
the claimants to speak for themselves."
The Texas Two-Step
The class action lawsuit alleges J&J used a practice known as the
"Texas Two-Step" solely to protect its assets from talc litigation.
The Texas Two-Step describes when companies facing litigation
relocate to Texas and split in two. One company houses the original
company's assets and the spinoff company holds its litigation and
liabilities.
Other tactics the class action lawsuit alleges J&J is using include
"asset stripping fraud" and "bait-and-switch fraud." Both allegedly
involve the company dumping or cutting funds and assets named in
lawsuits.
J&J's spinoff Kenvue is accused of being fraudulent. The class
action lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages. [GN]
KORU HEALTH: Class Settlement in Burnett Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAPORSHIA BURNETT, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KORU
HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00105-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge
William Griesbach entered an order granting final approval of
collective and class action settlement.
Based on the parties' submissions in support of their Joint Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Class
Certification for the Purposes of Settlement, their Joint Motion
for Final Settlement Approval, Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Service Award, and Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, as well as the record as a
whole, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WWPCL") Class
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 and the Fair Labor Standards
Act
(FLSA) Collective that submitted a consent to join form
pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) are certified;
2. The Settlement Agreement and Release is approved as a fair,
reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide wage
dispute
as it applies to the WWPCL Class and the FLSA Collective
Members;
3. The Plaintiff LaPorshia Burnett is approved as Class
Representative for the WWPCL Class and the FLSA Collective
Members;
4. Walcheske & Luzi, LLC is appointed as counsel for the WWPCL
Class and the FLSA Collective Members
5. The Agreement is binding on the Parties;
6. The WWPCL Class and the FLSA Collective Members' released
claims
(as defined in the Agreement) are dismissed with prejudice;
7. The settlement payments to the WWPCL Class and the FLSA
Collective Members (as described in the Agreement) are
approved;
and
8. The Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Defendant's counsel
with the amount of each WWPCL Class and the FLSA Collective
Members' settlement share as soon as practicable after the
entry
of this order so that the Defendant can issue the settlement
checks for the WWPCL Class and the FLSA Collective Members.
Koru owns and operates full-service senior living communities.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eiM9GI at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEBANON VALLEY: Alunni Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIC ALUNNI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V.
LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01424-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23:
(1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of
The Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement;
(2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement
only,
the following Settlement Class:
"All enrolled students at LVC during the Spring 2020
semester
who (1) paid Tuition and/or Fees, or who were credited with
having paid the same and (2) who were registered for at
least
one in-person class during the Spring 2020 semester."
(3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Dominic Alunni as
Settlement Class Representative;
(4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch
Carpenter, LLP, and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law,
P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement
Class
and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the
Settlement;
(5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure,
including
approving the Parties' selection of Analytics Consulting LLC
as
Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed
schedule;
(6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the
Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the
Proposed
Settlement Class; and
(7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and
appropriate.
Oral argument is requested to the extent desired by the Court
Lebanon Valley is a private institution that was founded in 1866.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3y9glc at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIVE NATION: Parties Seek to Extend Briefing Schedule Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN J. PAXSON, v. LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; LIVE NATION
WORLDWIDE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; C3 PRESENTS, LLC, a Texas
Limited-Liability Company; FRONT GATE TICKETING SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited-Liability Company, JOHN ROE COMPANIES NOS. 1-5,
ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES NOS. 1-20; AND DOE INDIVIDUALS NOS. 1-100,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00907-APG-EJY (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order extending the deadlines for briefing schedule:
Plaintiff's Opposition: June 11, 2024
Defendants' Reply: June 18, 2024
Moreover, the parties stipulate to the following briefing schedule
for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is as follows:
Defendants' Opposition: two (2) weeks before the hearing
Plaintiff's Reply: one (1) week before the hearing
Live Nation promotes, operates and manages ticket sales for live
entertainment internationally.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bem891 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Kane, Esq.
Bradley J. Myers, Esq.
Joel S. Hengstler, Esq.
THE702FIRM
8335 W. Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, NV 89147
E-mail: service@the702firm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Laureen P. Frister, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Telephone: (702) 893-3383
Facsimile: (702) 893-3789
E-mail: Laureen.Frister@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
Eleonora Antonyan, Esq.
Alexandra K. Christensen, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
Eleonora.Antonyan@lewisbrisbois.com
Alexandra.Christensen@lewisbrisbois.com
LLOYD AUSTIN: Feds For Freedom Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDS FOR FREEDOM, et al.,
v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05490-DGE (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs contend that they have satisfied all the
prerequisites under Rule 23 and therefore this Court should grant
their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff Elizabeth Soliday and 59 other putative class members
filed their Second Amended Class Complaint on Jan. 9, 2024.
The Plaintiffs challenge as unlawful the Defendants' failure to
accommodate their religious beliefs against the mandatory COVID-19
vaccination policy, particularly their lack of a functioning
religious accommodation process.
The Plaintiffs also challenge the Defendants' discriminatory
policies and practices that adversely impacted the Plaintiffs'
religious liberty, forcing them to choose between their livelihoods
and their faith.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all civilian employees
who worked for NAVSEA during the pandemic and who sought but did
not receive religious accommodation to the COVID-19 vaccine
mandate. The Soliday complaint included counts against Commander
Jim Mosman that the Court should treat as a subclass of the larger
class, with Elizabeth Soliday as the Agent for that subclass.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8nD0Ab at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Scott Lloyd, Esq.
LLOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
15 Chester St
Front Royal, VA 22630
Telephone: (540) 823-1110
E-mail: scott@lloydllg.com
- and -
Simon Peter Serrano, Esq.
SILENT MAJORITY FOUNDATION
5238 Outlet Dr.
Pasco, WA 99301
Telephone: (530) 906-9666
E-mail: pete@silentmajorityfoundation.org
- and -
Karen Osborne, Esq.
KOSBORNE LAW, LLC
9721 NE Livingston Mountain Court
Camas, WA 98607
Telephone: (360) 975-3813
E-mail: karen@smfjb.org
LOS ANGELES MAISON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Balynska Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANASTASIIA BALYNSKA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOS ANGELES MAISON, LLC; ACCOR
MANAGEMENT US, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV13476 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 30, 2024) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Balynska was employed by the Defendants as a business
ambassador.
LOS ANGELES MAISON, LLC owns and operates a chain of hotels,
resorts, and motels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy S. Ramsey, Esq.
ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C.
21 Miller Alley, Suite 56
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (626) 310-0100
Facsimile: (626) 310-0103
Email: aramsey@advantage-law.com
MADONNA: Halper-Asefi Sues Over Deceptive Advertisement
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Halper-Asefi; Mary Conoboy; and Nestor Monte, Jr., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MADONNA
LOUISE CICCONE; LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.; LIVE NATION MTOURS
(USA), INC.; and LINCOLN HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A MONUMENTAL SPORTS &
ENTERTAINMENT, Case No. 1:24-cv-01118-RC (D.D.C., April 18, 2024),
is brought on behalf of three consumers who were deceived when they
purchased tickets for Madonna's Celebration Tour concerts on
December 18th and 19th, 2023 at the Capital One Arena.
The Defendants advertised that the Celebration Tour concerts at the
Capital One Arena would start at 8:30 p.m. (with doors opening at
7:30 p.m.), but Madonna did not take the stage until after 10:30
p.m. on both nights. The concerts started over three hours late; as
a result, all three individual Plaintiffs who purchased their
tickets in response to the Defendants' marketing had to leave the
concerts early prior to the concerts' conclusion, therefore
depriving each of them of the benefit of seeing the complete
concert.
Madonna, and her promoter, Live Nation, purposely and deceptively
withheld informing ticket purchasers in the marketing of the
concerts that: Madonna would not appear at 8:30 p.m. but instead
would make fans wait as late as 10:40 p.m. to start her show;
Madonna would maintain a hot and uncomfortable temperature in the
venue during her performance; and Madonna would lip synch much of
her performance. Defendants should have disclosed to consumers this
important information before they purchased their tickets. Forcing
consumers to wait hours for her performance in a hot, uncomfortable
arena is demonstrative of Madonna's arrogant and total disrespect
for her fans.
If Madonna was not going to perform as advertised, she should have
changed the time on the Celebration Tour tickets from 8:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m., as she and Live Nation did during the 2019 Madame X
Tour, giving consumers reasonable notice of a later start time.
Madonna and Live Nation have publicly stated that it is not
reasonable for consumers to believe that the 8:30 start time on the
ticket indicates that's when the concert will begin and that no
concerts start on the start time as advertised. This is absurd. In
fact, reasonable consumers have seen that concerts featuring Taylor
Swift and Bruce Springsteen, whose tours are also promoted by Live
Nation, do start on the time indicated on the ticket and have
similar experiences attending Broadway theater, NFL football and
Major League baseball games, for example.
The Defendants' actions with respect to the December concerts at
the Capital One Arena constitute not just a breach of contract with
Plaintiffs and the Class Members, but also a wanton exercise in
false advertising, intentional and negligent misrepresentation and
unfair and deceptive trade practices. These acts or omissions are
not countenanced by law, and Plaintiffs and the Class Members
should be compensated for their damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased tickets for the Defendants concert.
Madonna Louise Ciccone ("Madonna"), is an individual residing in
the State of New York and doing business in the District of
Columbia as a concert performer under the name "Madonna."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Greenbaum, Esq.
SCHWARTZ & GREENBAUM, LLC
409 Washington Ave., Suite 300
Towson, MD 21204
410.321.8400 – Telephone
Email: dag@sgmdlaw.com
- and -
Marcus W. Corwin, Esq.
MARCUS W. CORWIN, P.A. d/b/a CORWIN LAW
6501 Congress Avenue, Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33487
561.482.3636 – Telephone
Email: mcorwin@corwinlawfirm.com
MALAYSIAN MUSLIM: Class Suit Alleges Death Due to COVID-19 Vaccine
------------------------------------------------------------------
Qirana Nabilla Mohd Rashidi, writing for The Sun, reports that
lawyers representing the Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association
filed a class action suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on May 23
on behalf of eight individuals over the Covid-19 vaccines.
The plaintiffs claim that they or their next of kin suffered health
damage or died after being forced to take the vaccine with unproven
safety and efficacy records. Others claimed they faced
discrimination at work for refusing to be vaccinated.
The lawsuit filed by Messrs Mohamad Zainuddin and Co named 25
defendants, including Malaysia's two former and current prime
ministers, the federal government, former and current health and
education ministers, past and present inspector generals of police,
and the director-general of the World Health Organisation as well
as vaccine manufacturers Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Malaysia Sdn Bhd and
Sinovac Biotech Ltd (Beijing).
The statement of claim said the first plaintiff from Muar in Johor
is the eldest son of the late Saifulbahri Mohamad, who died after
receiving two doses of the Sinovac vaccine and a booster shot of
the Pfizer vaccine, "which are unsafe, ineffective and toxic".
The second plaintiff is the husband of the late Andu Satu, who died
after receiving two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, while the third
plaintiff is a healthy grass keeping worker who was directed by his
employer and the government to receive two doses of the Pfizer
vaccine.
The third plaintiff suffered a stroke, resulting in speech
impairment and the inability to walk normally, requiring the use of
a cane due to adverse effects following vaccination.
The fourth plaintiff is a healthy masseuse who experienced chronic
vomiting, severe headaches and body pain with tremors after
receiving the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine on Sept 1, 2021.
She is now confined to a wheelchair.
The fifth plaintiff is a healthy housewife who received the first
dose of the Pfizer vaccine on Aug 13, 2021, after which she
experienced persistent headaches and vomiting that continued for
two weeks.
Upon being injected with the second dose of the same vaccine on
Sept 3, she developed itching, body pain, sores and blisters.
She was later told the vaccine was unsuitable for her and she
suffers ongoing body and chest pain, and vision impairment in her
right eye.
The sixth plaintiff is an Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad (ASNB)
employee.
She claims that former health minister Khairy Jamaluddin said on
Oct 16, 2021 that a law would be mandated for the private sector,
requiring companies to have regulations and/or policies that all
employees must be fully vaccinated to work.
It is alleged in the statement of claim that Khairy had said he
would "make things difficult" for those who refused the vaccine.
When the plaintiff refused to take the vaccine, which became the
new policy, she was instructed by her employer and its subsidiary
company to use up all her annual leave, and then take unpaid leave
or resign voluntarily.
Hence, she claims discrimination.
The seventh plaintiff is a ladies' department supervisor at Parkson
Mahkota Parade in Malacca, who refused the (unnamed) vaccine and
was barred from work for non-compliance with company policy
requiring employees to take two doses before Aug 22, 2021.
She too was allegedly forced to take unpaid leave until vaccinated
and claims discrimination.
The eighth plaintiff represented his mother, Ng Hoe Peng @ Ng Swee
Chun, who complied with the government campaign and received the
first dose of the Sinovac vaccine on June 14, 2022.
Ng developed severe health issues and tested positive for Covid-19,
which worsened her condition.
She was hospitalised and experienced side effects, including hyper
inflammation, fatal respiratory failure and hypo-immunity.
Ng was administered morphine and died on July 16 the same year.
Lawyer Mohamad Zainuddin Abu Bakar from the law firm told the Sun
that all the plaintiffs mentioned in the suit represent the public,
who can be added to the suit instead of having hundreds of
individual ones filed.
"They are the pioneering ones. More than 400 other plaintiffs from
the association can be added to this class action suit under
different categories as we have stated in the statement of claim,"
he said. [GN]
MANTEI & ASSOCIATES: Appeals Atty.'s Fees Ruling in Black Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mantei & Associates, Ltd. has filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in the lawsuit styled
DONALD BLACK, MARCIA BLACK, LARRY MARTIN, REBECCA MARTIN, BARBARA
THOMPSON, and JAMES THOMPSON, for themselves and a class of
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MANTEI & ASSOCIATES, LTD., RICKEY
ALAN MANTEI, CINDY CHIELLINI, CENTAURUS FINANCIAL, INC., and J.P.
TURNER & CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04149-MGL, in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
The Plaintiffs, for themselves and a class of similarly situated
plaintiffs, brought this putative class action against Defendants
in the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas in June 2019, in
connection with securities transactions executed in brokerage
accounts. They allege Defendants sold to them, and to putative
class members, illiquid and "ripoff" products.
The Defendants removed the case to the District Court, which denied
Plaintiffs' initial motion to remand. After Plaintiffs amended
their complaint, the Court granted their second motion to remand.
Three years later, the Defendants again removed this matter,
claiming Plaintiffs' expert opinions showed this case presents a
federal question. The Plaintiffs filed another motion to remand,
which the Court granted, holding Defendants had raised the same
arguments the Court had previously rejected. The Court also granted
Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees and costs and directed them
to file briefing regarding the appropriate amount.
Having carefully considered the application, the objections, the
reply, the record, and the applicable law, the Court entered
judgment on the Plaintiffs' application, as modified, in the amount
of $58,530 in attorney fees and $4,477.50 in costs.
The appellate case is captioned as Donald Black v. Mantei &
Associates, Ltd., Case No. 24-1439, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 15, 2024.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants MANTEI & ASSOCIATES, LTD., et al., are
represented by:
Michael Hart Montgomery, Esq.
MONTGOMERY WILLARD, LLC
1002 Calhoun Street
P. O. Box 11886
Columbia, SC 29211-1886
Telephone: (803) 753-6484
- and -
Kevin Joseph Malloy, Esq.
Joel H. Smith, Esq.
BOWMAN & BROOKE, LLP
1441 Main Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 726-7477
- and -
Cory Manning, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
1320 Main Street
Meridian Building
Columbia, SC 29206
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Faces Class Suit Over Biometric Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that Marriott Hotel Services was hit with a class
action lawsuit for alleged violations of the Illinois' Biometrics
Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The lawsuit alleges that the hotel
violated BIPA by requiring workers to scan their fingerprints as a
means to clock in at work without proper notice or consent.
BIPA prohibits businesses from:
-- Collecting biometric data without written consent;
-- Collecting biometric data without informing the person in
writing of the purpose and length of time the data will be used;
and
-- Selling or profiting from consumers' biometric information.
The complaint states that the fingerprint scanner is connected to
the timekeeping and payroll system and then stored on a third-party
platform (Kronos, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that Marriott did
not inform employees of the system or how long the data would be
retained. The proposed class includes all employees who worked for
Marriott in Illinois since 2019.
BIPA permits plaintiffs to seek statutory damages between $1,000
and $5,000 per violation.
Illinois is not the only state with this type of biometric privacy
law: the states of Texas and Washington also have regulations that
address the collection and use of biometric data. Other states have
narrower biometric regulations, such as industry-specific laws and
certain provisions under state consumer privacy rights statutes
(e.g., California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia).
Additionally, many other states have introduced biometric privacy
laws, such as Massachusetts and Missouri. Companies should be on
the lookout for new laws and regulations in this space and confirm
that their actions related to biometric data collection and use are
in compliance with applicable laws. [GN]
MATY'S HEALTHY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Jackson Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MATY'S HEALTHY PRODUCTS LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-04162 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
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 asserts.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the COVID-19
global pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC"), Americans living with disabilities are at
higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 and, therefore, are
recommended to shelter in place throughout the duration of the
pandemic. This underscores the importance of access to online
retailers, such as the Defendant, for this especially vulnerable
population, the lawsuit adds.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
April 3, 2024, the Plaintiff attempted to purchase cough medication
but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the
item[s] to the cart due to the broken links and a lack of picture
descriptions on the Website, and barriers on the Defendant's
website, which prevented her from doing so. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Jackson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Maty's offers holistic health products and herbal supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. 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: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
MDL 2989: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-02989 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 1,
2021), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order denying
as moot motion for reconsideration of class certification order.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.[CC]
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Securities Suit Over False Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2024, that on
April 13, 2023, the MPT and certain of its executives were named as
defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit,
alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock,
filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Case No.
2:23-cv-00486.
This class action complaint was amended on September 22, 2023.
The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and
unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable
costs and expenses.
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing
in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its
operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P.
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2024, that on
September 29, 2023, the company and certain of its executives were
named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action
lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No.
1:23-cv- 08597).
The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of
its common stock between May 23, 2023 and August 17, 2023 and
alleges false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in
connection with certain transactions involving Prospect.
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing
in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its
operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P.
MERRILL LYNCH: Agrees to $20-Mil. Racial Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Almazora, writing for Investment News, reports that Merrill
Lynch and its parent company, Bank of America, have are paying
nearly $20 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging
discriminatory practices against African American financial
advisors.
The wirehouse has agreed to a $19.95 million settlement, pending
court approval, which addresses claims that the wirehouse's
policies have limited business opportunities, client leads, and
compensation for African American advisors since 2016.
The plaintiffs, four former Merrill Lynch financial advisors, argue
that systemic discrimination has resulted in fewer career
advancement opportunities and higher termination rates for African
American advisors compared to their white counterparts.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, claims these practices have caused significant
professional and financial harm to African American employees.
"African-American Financial Advisors were terminated (or 'washed
out') from employment with Defendants at higher rates than their
White counterparts and fail to advance to more senior roles," the
plaintiffs allege.
The complaint further highlights a gap in compensation and
promotions between African American and white advisors at Merrill
Lynch.
The legal battle's roots go back to July 2021, when ex-Merrill
advisors Lucinda Council and Ravynne Gilmore filed a lawsuit
against their former employer in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.
That suit claimed that African American advisors faced systemic
discrimination, resulting in lower compensation and fewer
promotions. The two voluntarily dismissed that action as settlement
talks progressed, but the suit was refiled in January 2022 in Palm
Beach County, Florida, before being moved to federal court last
week.
The current class action includes additional plaintiffs, former
Merrill advisors Verna Dottin-Maitland and Hilari Ngufor.
The settlement agreement, reached after mediation in September
2021, covers all African American Merrill employees who held
positions as financial advisors, financial advisor development
program trainees, or financial solutions advisors from November 23,
2016, to December 23, 2022.
The four named plaintiffs negotiated separate settlements, the
details of which were not disclosed.
In addition to the financial settlement, Merrill Lynch and Bank of
America have committed to five years of programmatic relief, which
includes diversity and inclusion training for Merrill Lynch Wealth
Management employees and an annual analysis of diversity metrics
within the company.
This settlement follows a previous $160 million agreement Merrill
Lynch reached in 2013 to resolve another racial class action filed
by a group of advisors, which grew to include as many as 1,200
representatives. [GN]
MERRILL LYNCH: Council et al. Allege Workplace Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUCINDA COUNCIL, RAVYNNE GILMORE, VERNA MAITLAND, and HILARI
NGUFOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00534 (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2024) alleges violations of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S. Code Section 1981.
The Plaintiffs claim that African-Americans employed by the
Defendants as financial advisors have received less compensation
and have been promoted less frequently than their White
counterparts as a result of Defendants' discriminatory policies,
patterns, and/or practices, including Defendants' minimum threshold
production credit requirements, lack of support, and inequitable
teaming opportunities.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Merrill Lynch is a full-service
securities firm. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo Meireles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
- and -
Adam T. Klein, Esq.
Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, Floor 25
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
MERS MISSOURI: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Rayburn Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Rayburn and Marquita Patterson on behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERS
Missouri Goodwill Industries, Case No. 4:24-cv-00756-JSD (E.D. Mo.,
May 30, 2024) is a class action arising from a recent cyberattack
resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the
possession and custody and/or control of the Defendant.
The Data Breach occurred between March 10, 2023 and March 15, 2023.
However, it is unclear when MERS became aware of the breach due to
the obfuscating nature of its breach notice. The Data Breach
resulted in the unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of
current and former employees' personally identifiable information
and personal health information, including full names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, and medical diagnosis information,
the Plaintiffs alleges.
On May 9, 2024, over a year and two months after the breach
occurred, MERS finally notified the Plaintiffs and Class Members
about the widespread Data Breach.
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its current and former employees vulnerable to identity theft
without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit
reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII/PHI, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are victims of the
Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class
trusted the Defendant with their PII/PHI. But Defendant betrayed
that trust.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit seeking
injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be
based on information in the Defendant's possession.
Plaintiffs Marquita Patterson and Tiffany Rayburn are citizens of
Missouri, where they intend to remain.
MERS is a non-profit organization that offers programs and services
including career counseling, skills training, education and
literacy programs, employment services, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
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
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Suit Transferred to D. Nevada
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Saul Lassoff, Shirley Lassoff, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MGM Resorts
International, Caesars Entertainment Inc, Case No. 1:23-cv-20419
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
on May 28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00995-CDS-EJY to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
MGM Resorts International -- https://www.mgmresorts.com/en.html --
is an American global hospitality and entertainment company
operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Maryland, Ohio, and New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Lassoff, Esq.
5006 Wellington Avenue, Ste 2343
Ventnor, NJ 08406
Phone: (609) 375-7491
The Defendant is represented by:
Haley Dee Torrey, Esq.
Stephen Harry Barrett, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1650 Market Street, 49th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 656-2436
MUNCHKIN INC: McKinney Sues Over Refill Bags' False Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY MCKINNEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MUNCHKIN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04338 (C.D. Cal., May 24, 2024) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all purchasers of
Defendant's refill products, alleging the Defendant of
manufacturing, distributing, and selling under-filled and
mislabeled Nursery Fresh brand 8-pack diaper pail refill bags in
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The Defendant falsely labels its refill products with the
advertisement "1 YEAR SUPPLY," even though the refill products are
incapable of holding the number of diapers that all but the
smallest minority of babies go through in a year. The vast majority
of consumers that use Defendants’ refill products do not receive
a one-year supply of these products even when following all stated
instructions and using these products as intended. Defendants are
accordingly misleading consumers into purchasing a stated, precise
sum of refill products, but delivering far less than promised.
Further, the Defendant's representations that refill products hold
up to 2176 diapers are also false and misleading, says the suit.
Headquartered in California, Munchkin, Inc. manufactures and
distributes infant and toddler products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: 415-839-7077
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: 617-377-4704
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
MV TRANSPORTATION: Ousley-Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Ousley-Brown, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California Corporation, Case No. 2024 CH 01309 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on April 15, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03019.
The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Illinois Genetic
Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), by requiring Plaintiff and the
putative class to undergo medical examinations where they were
required to answer questions regarding their family medical history
as a condition of their employment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Orly Henry, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312-372-5520
Email: ohenry@littler.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Browne Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LESROY E. BROWNE has filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated April 30, 2024 dismissing his lawsuit styled
LESROY E. BROWNE, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN
TRUST A/K/A NATIONAL COLLEGIATE MASTER STUDENT LOAN TRUST I, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02713-MCA-JSA, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an Order on August 1, 2023
reversing the District Court's order to remand Browne's class
action complaint to the New Jersey state court.
In 2007, Browne cosigned a student loan issued by JP Morgan Chase
Bank (the Chase Loan). Ten years later, Browne asked Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), which was the primary
servicer of the Chase Loan, to identify the Loan's current
creditor. Browne alleges that PHEAA informed him that the Trusts
owned the Chase Loan and that he therefore made payments to the
Trusts from June 2017 until at least June 2020, when the loan was
paid in full.
Upon remand, Browne filed an amended complaint in state court
naming the Trusts, Wilmington Trust Company, U.S. Bank N.A., and
Transworld Systems, Inc. as defendants. His new complaint added 68
paragraphs of allegations against the Appellants, on top of
augmenting and emphasizing theories of liability mentioned in
passing in the original complaint. Browne's complaint was once
again removed to federal court, prompting Browne to seek remand for
lack of Article III standing.
On April 30, 2024, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo signed an Order
granting Defendants' September 25, 2023 motions to dismiss the
complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as Lesroy Browne v. National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust, et al., Case No. 24-1896, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May
15, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LESROY E. BROWNE, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST, also
known as NATIONAL COLLEGIATE MASTER STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1, is
represented by:
Christopher B. Fontenelli, Esq.
LOCKE LORD
60 Park Place, Suite 404
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (212) 912-2730
Defendants-Appellees WILMINGTON TRUST CO, as Trustee for National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust; US BANK NA, in its Role as Special
Servicer for the National Collegiate Student Loan Trust; and
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC, are represented by:
Jenny R. Kramer, Esq.
Reade W. Seligmann, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10016
- and -
Jennifer L. Del Medico, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street, Floor 31
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
- and -
Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
SESSIONS ISRAEL & SHARTLE
3 Cross Creek Drive
Flemington, NJ 08822
Telephone: (908) 237-1660
NATIONS DIRECT: Kuhn Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jason Kuhn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No.
24CA115 was removed from the Walton County Circuit Court, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
on April 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00170-TKW-HTC.
The Plaintiff amended in response to NDM's motion to dismiss based
upon, among other things, Plaintiff's failure to articulate any
injury that could support standing much less any notion of
damages.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christina M. Morgan, Esq.
BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 219-6329
Email: cmorgan@buchalter.com
- and -
Michael P. De Simone, Esq.
P.O. Box 3571
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Phone: (914) 419-7908
Email: Michael@DeSimone.Law
NCINO INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
nCino, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 29, 2023, that in July 2023,
through mediation, the company and the plaintiffs in a putative
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 12, 2021,
reached a settlement agreement in principle of approximately $2.2
million. The District Court entered the Final Judgement of
Dismissal on March 14, 2024.
The sole class representative in the suit is one individual
alleging a contract, combination or conspiracy between and among
the company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture, Inc. not to
solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and N.C. Gen Stat. Sections 75-1 and 75-2.
The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies,
including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees,
the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest.
The complaint does not allege any specific damages.
nCino is a financial technology company headquartered in
Wilmington, North Carolina using a cloud-based banking software to
help financial institutions to gain efficiencies from digitizing
and streamlining processes in commercial banking, small business
banking and retail banking.
NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Denver Plant's Foul Odor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Patrick, writing for 98.5 KYGO, reports that the plaintiffs
are asking for a judge to declare the Purina plant a nuisance for
failing to properly maintain and operate the facility so that odors
are controlled, and to fault the company for negligence. They also
are asking for an unspecified amount in financial damages.
Purina first operated its plant in Denver in 1930 and for 42 years
produced primarily livestock feed. It transitioned to a pet food
factory in 1972.
If you've ever driven on I-70 through Denver you know it stinks
bad. The Purina dog food plant stench isn't new, but it's really
got some people mad at the moment.
Two residents who live near the "Nestle-Purina Petcare" plant, as
it's officially known, filed a proposed class action lawsuit in
federal court this week over the smell they say infiltrates nearby
homes, parks, libraries, schools and businesses.
The plaintiffs are asking for a judge to declare the Purina plant a
nuisance for failing to properly maintain and operate the facility
so that odors are controlled, and to fault the company for
negligence. They also are asking for an unspecified amount in
financial damages.
Purina first operated its plant in Denver in 1930 and for 42 years
produced primarily livestock feed. It transitioned to a pet food
factory in 1972.[BN]
NEW YORK: Cymbler Sues Over Illegal Installation of Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carol S. Cymbler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated NEW YORK STATE, NASSAU COUNTY, NASSAU COUNTY TRAFFIC AND
PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY VERRA MOBILITY CORPORATION, AMERICAN
TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02792-AMD-SIL (E.D.N.Y.,
April 15, 2024), is brought concerning the illegal installation and
operation of red light cameras operating in Nassau County,
involving the electronic transmission of information in a manner
regulated by federal law specifically The Telecommunication Act of
1934.
In authorizing use of a red light camera program in and by Nassau
County, New York State specifically declared that the red light
camera program "shall empower such county to install and operate
empower such county to install and operate traffic-control signal
photo violation-monitoring devices." When, in May of 2009, the
Nassau County Legislature established its red light camera program
via Title 72 of the Miscellaneous Laws of Nassau County, it ensured
that the wording of Title 72 complied with the authorization
granted.
Regardless of whether or not the enacting statutes were
constitutional, at issue herein is that the manner in which the red
light cameras in Nassau County have been installed and operated
since their first use--and continuing through the present day--is
illegal. The injuries to plaintiff and to the class members would
not have occurred if constitutional and statutory requirements had
been complied with and if compliance with those requirements had
been placed ahead of government and corporate greed, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received a Notice of Liability for an alleged
violation of a red light by a vehicle registered to her.
State of New York is the sovereign State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Fischer, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN J. FISCHER, PLLC
213-37 39th Avenue, Suite 147
Bayside, NY 11361
Phone: (718) 253-5997
Fax: (718) 253-4748
Email: BenjaminJFischerEsq@BJFLawOffice.com
- and -
Luis A. Pagan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LUIS A. PAGAN
113 Gritting Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (631) 369-7373
Fax: (631) 369-2838
Email: Paganlawgroup@optonline.net
NISSAN NORTH: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Info, Levey Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN LEVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00672
(M.D. Tenn., May 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices
to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.
The Data Breach occurred on Nov. 7, 2023. The Defendant began
sending notice letters to Class Members on May 15, 2024. As a
result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now
at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into
the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft, the Plaintiff contends.
As a result of the Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate data
security practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered
numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, the Plaintiff
adds.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems,
future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant, and declaratory
relief.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Knoxville, Tennessee.
The Plaintiff was the Defendant's employee who received a Notice
Letter from Defendant. As a condition of employment, the Plaintiff
was required to provide the Defendant his Private Information.
Nissan is a car manufacturer that builds and sells cars across
North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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 -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FURGESON
WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
NORTH STATE ELECTRICAL: Roper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North State
Electrical Contractors, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Arthur
Roper, other members of the general public similarly situated v.
North State Electrical Contractors, Inc., et al., Case No.
24CV007543 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 16, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
North State Electrical Contractors, Inc. --
https://www.northstate-eci.com/ -- is a local family owned and
managed electrical contracting company.[BN]
NVIDIA CORP: Shareholder Suit in CA Court Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report he quarterly
period ended April 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 20, 2024, that it is currently facing a putative
securities class action lawsuit (4:18-cv-07669-HSG) initially filed
on December 21, 2018 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and titled "In Re NVIDIA
Corporation Securities Litigation." An amended complaint was filed
on May 13, 2020.
The amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA
executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false or misleading statements related to
channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on
graphics processing unit demand between May 10, 2017 and November
14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who
they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper. NVIDIA filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari on March 4, 2024
On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in
favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs
filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604.
On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel
affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis
that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. On
November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA's petition for
rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel's majority decision to
reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA had filed
on October 10, 2023. On November 21, 2023, NVIDIA filed a motion
with the Ninth Circuit for a stay of the mandate pending NVIDIA's
petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court's resolution of the matter. On
December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA's motion to stay
the mandate. NVIDIA's deadline to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari is March 4, 2024.
NVIDIA is a full-stack computing company with data-center-scale
offerings for "compute & networking" and graphics.
OKN INC: Prats Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
Rudy Beltran Prats, on behalf of himself and all other individuals
similarly situated v. OKN INC. D/B/A LE JARDINE DU ROI, AND JOE
QUARTARARO, Case No. 7:24-cv-04067 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2024), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for unpaid
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff worked 45 weeks each year for the Defendants. The
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium equal to
1.5x Beltran Prats's regular rate. Instead of paying the Plaintiff
an overtime premium of 1.5 x the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay,
the Defendants paid the Plaintiff by only paid straight time rate
for all hours worked over 40. The Defendants engaged in this
unlawful overtime pay practice from June 1, 2018, through April 24,
2024, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a W2 non-exempt
wage earner.
OKN Inc d/b/a "Le Jardine du Roi" is a business located in
Chappaqua, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C
777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
White Plains, N.Y, 10604
Phone: (914)218-6190
Fax: (914)206-4176
Email: Jordan@elhaglaw.com
Web: www.elhaglaw.com
OLIPHANT USA: Nabbefeld Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oliphant USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Nolan Nabbefeld, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Oliphant USA, LLC, Case No.
8:24-cv-00930-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Oliphant Financial -- https://www.oliphantusa.com/ -- is one of the
original debt purchasing organizations in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sangeeta P. Spengler, Esq.
MARTIN, GOLDEN LYONS, WATTS MORGAN PLLC
410 South Ware Boulevard, Suite 806
Tampa, FL 33619
Phone: (214) 346-2630
Email: sspengler@mgl.law
PATAGONIA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Digital Spy Trackers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Nishimura, writing for Sourcing Journal, reports that
Patagonia is in hot water over allegations that it illegally
implemented hidden digital spy trackers within its correspondence
to consumers and used them to obtain sensitive information.
A class-action lawsuit filed by Heather Knight in Arizona federal
court last week accused the Ventura, Calif.-based outdoor brand of
violating the state's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service
Record Act. According to the suit, Patagonia neglected to inform
shoppers that it was utilizing tracking pixels embedded in
promotional emails to capture data and insights about them.
The plaintiff said she was not aware that the trackers, otherwise
known as "spy pixels," were being employed, and therefore couldn't
give her consent. Made from snippets of HTML code, the pixels load
when a consumer opens an email or a visits a website, and companies
typically leverage them to track online behavior and conversions in
order to inform their marketing strategies.
"Defendant's invasive surveillance of Plaintiff's sensitive reading
habits and clandestine collection of her confidential email records
invaded her privacy and intruded upon her seclusion," Knight's
lawsuit read.
The Arizona Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records
Act prohibits a person or organization from knowingly garnering a
"communication service record" -- which includes subscriber
information ranging from name to billing address, payment methods,
phone numbers, associated screen names or aliases and more --
without authorization or through subversive methods.
Knight alleged that Patagonia's tracking pixels picked up on
information like her location, her IP address and information about
her digital device. They also served to inform the brand about how
much time she spent reading the marketing emails, along with where
and when they were read.
Now, Knight is seeking others who have opened similar emails from
Patagonia to join the class-action lawsuit. She is pushing for a
trial by jury and is requesting declaratory and injunctive relief,
meaning that the brand won't be able to employ such methods without
warning consumers in the future. She's also pursuing damages for
herself and anyone who joins the suit.
Unlawful data tracking lawsuits have snowballed in recent years.
Arizona also saw a similar suit brought against Home Depot earlier
this spring, wherein plaintiff Ivonne Carbajal alleged that the
retailer leveraged tracking pixels from Validity Inc. in its
marketing emails to gather and store information about her without
her consent. The insights included where and when she opened the
emails and how much time she spent reading them.
In April, Arizona resident Arlette Campos also filed a class-action
lawsuit under the Arizona Telephone, Utility and Communication
Service Records Act against TJ Maxx, Marshalls and HomeGoods owner
TJX, alleging that the company used spy pixels in its promotional
emails. According to the plaintiff, the trackers were automatically
downloaded without her knowledge when she opened an email from TJX,
allowing the company to access information she deemed sensitive for
its own commercial gain. [GN]
PERF OPCO: Danso Sues Over Noncompliance of ADA's Web Accessibility
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY DANSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERF OPCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04017 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
Rights Law.
Due to Defendant's failure to build its website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the perfume that Plaintiff wished
to acquire from the website, the suit alleges.
Perf Opco, LLC owns and operates the website,
www.fragranceoutlet.com, which sells perfumes and colognes for both
men and women. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
PIO PIO NYC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Obando Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS OBANDO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiff v. PIO PIO NYC, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, SIPAN
RESTAURANT OF NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO OCHO, INC.
d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO 34, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO 85, INC.
d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO EXPRESS, POLLOS
A LA BRASA PIO, PIO, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO-PIO RESTAURANT, INC.
d/b/a PIO PIO, EL PILLO INC. d/b/a AMARU, MOCHICA GROUP CORP., INES
YALLICO, and AUGUSTO YALLICO, Defendants, Case No. 711124/2024
(N.Y. Sup., May 24, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the
New York Labor Law.
In or around June 2013, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to
work as a dishwasher. In or around September 2019, he was promoted
to the position of kitchen supervisor. As part of this position
change, Defendants, however, began compensating Plaintiff on a
fixed weekly basis regardless of hours worked. Moreover, the
Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek due to a fixed
salary, says the suit.
Pio Pio NYC, Inc. operates a chain of nine Peruvian Restaurants and
a bar as a single integrated enterprise. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
PRIMAL HEALTH: Schick Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primal Health LP. The
case is styled as Deborah Schick, Individually and on Behalf of
those Similarly Situated v. Primal Health LP, Case No.
1:24-cv-02322-VMC (D. Ariz., May 28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
GoodPress Publishing, L.C. doing business as Simply The Best
Digital Marketing -- https://simplythebestdigital.com/ -- is a
leading PPC management company that uses paid advertising to
increase leads and drive sales for your business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
- and -
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
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Borovoy Sues Over False and Misleading Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christy Borovoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-04366
(N.D. Ill., May 28, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's false
and misleading statement with regard to the Defendant's hygiene
products represented as "Pure Cotton*" under the Tampax brand
("Product").
Other statements include "Tampons Free of Dyes, Fragrances &
Chlorine Bleaching," "*Contains 100% Organic Cotton Core," a
picture of cotton, and "90% Plant Based Applicator." By describing
the Product as "Pure Cotton*," consumers expect all of its
components to be made from cotton. Despite the front label promise
that the Product was "Pure Cotton," the non-core ingredients are
not pure because they are significantly altered from their original
or natural state.
The statement, "Tampons Free of Dyes, & Chlorine Bleaching" appeals
to purchasers who seek personal care products without added
coloring. Though it may be literally true that the Product is "Free
of Dyes, & Chlorine Bleaching," this statement is misleading
because it contains titanium dioxide, a synthetically prepared
powder used as a white pigment. The use of titanium dioxide serves
the identical purpose of dye and chlorine bleaching with respect to
the Product's components such as the string.
The Defendant makes representations and omissions that are false
and misleading. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at
higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $11.49 for 24
tampons, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products,
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products.
The Defendant operates the Tampax brand of women's personal care
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Kate J. Stoia, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: snam@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
kstoia@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412
Great Neck, New York 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7084
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
James Chung, Esq.
CHUNG LAW FIRM P.C.
43-22 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Phone: (718) 461-8808
Email: jchung_77@msn.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Pfaff-Harris Sues Over Undervaluing Total Loss
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Pfaff-Harris and Fred G. Wright, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio
corporations, Case No. 2:24-cv-00761-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., April 19,
2024), is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated claimants in Nevada who received a payment for the loss of
a totaled vehicle from Defendants, where Defendants used valuation
reports prepared by Mitchell International, Inc. to determine the
actual cash value ("ACV") of the loss vehicles.
Through Mitchell's valuation, Defendants systemically thumb the
scale when calculating the ACV of claimants' loss vehicles by
applying so called "Projected Sold Adjustments" that are: (a)
arbitrary; (b) contrary to appraisal standards and methodologies;
(c) not based in fact, as they are contrary to the used car
industry's market pricing and inventory management practices; (d)
not applied by the major competitor of Defendants' vendor Mitchell;
and (e) on information and belief, not applied by Defendants and
Mitchell to insureds in other states like California and
Washington.
Specifically, Defendants, through Mitchell, systemically apply a
so-called "Projected Sold Adjustment" that results in a significant
downward adjustment to the base values of the comparable vehicles
used to calculate the ACV of Plaintiffs' and Class members' total
loss vehicles. This reduction is contrary to appraisal standards
and methodologies and is not based in fact, as it is contrary to
the used car industry's market pricing and inventory management
practices. The adjustment is applied to each of the comparable
vehicles on top of adjustments for differences such as mileage,
options, and equipment. The only purported explanation for the
downward adjustment appears on the last page of the valuation
reports and is a general, nondescript statement claiming that the
reduction is to "reflect consumer purchasing behavior (negotiating
a different price than the listed price)."
Neither Progressive nor Mitchell has ever conducted any study or
research to determine whether such "consumer purchasing behavior"
exists and impacts ACV in the modern used-car market. Worse than
this complete lack of curiosity is that Defendants thumb the scale
by discarding vast amounts of relevant data that contradict
applying a Projected Sold Adjustment.
To arrive at its conclusion that consumers negotiate down the
advertised price, Progressive, through their vendors, intentionally
distorts the data, excludes transactions that undercut its false
hypothesis, and ignores market realities, all for the purpose of
applying a capricious and unjustified Projected Sold Adjustment to
artificially deflate the value of total loss vehicles.
This pattern and practice of undervaluing comparable and total loss
vehicles when paying automobile total loss claims through
arbitrary, unsupported, and unjustified adjustments, which benefits
the insurer at the expense of the insured, violates Defendants'
policies with its insureds, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were involved in a car wreck and sustained physical
damage to her vehicle.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company is an Ohio company with its
principal place of business in Ohio..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg A. Hubley, Esq.
Christopher A. J. Swift, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP
7201 W. Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 570
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Phone: (702) 789-7529
Facsimile: (702) 909-7865
Email: gregg@aswtlawyers.com
christopher@aswtlawyers.com
RIO TINTO: May Face Class Action Over Employee Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Rio
Tinto -- one of the world's biggest metals and mining corporations
-- could face a class action brought by employees and contractors
who may have been subjected to sexual discrimination or sexual
harassment at work on Australian mine sites.
In February 2022, a review conducted by former Australian sex
discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick identified
"disturbing findings of bullying, sexual harassment, racism and
other forms of discrimination through the company".
Broderick -- who served as sex discrimination commissioner from
2007 to 2015 and is now principal of consultancy firm Elizabeth
Broderick & Co -- was engaged to conduct the independent review of
the mining giant's workplace culture.
Among the report's findings were that, in the last five years,
nearly three in 10 women and 6 per cent of men had experienced
sexual harassment at work, four in 10 men and over three in 10
women who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in
Australia experienced racism.
Shockingly, 21 women surveyed reported actual or attempted rape or
sexual assault.
Bullying and sexism were also found to be "systemic" in Rio Tinto
workplaces, with almost half of the people surveyed having
experienced bullying.
In a statement issued at the time of the report's release, Rio
Tinto chief executive Jakob Stausholm said: "The findings of this
report are deeply disturbing to me and should be to everyone who
reads them. I offer my heartfelt apology to every team member, past
or present, who has suffered as a result of these behaviours. This
is not the kind of company we want to be.
"I feel shame and enormous regret to have learned the extent to
which bullying, sexual harassment and racism are happening at Rio
Tinto.
"I am determined that by implementing appropriate actions to
address the recommendations, and with the management team's
commitment to a safe, respectful and inclusive Rio Tinto in all
areas, we will make positive and lasting change and strengthen our
workplace culture for the long term.
"I am grateful to everyone who has come forward to share their
experiences as we go about this vital work."
At the time, Broderick did note that the report "is not a reason
for reduced confidence in Rio Tinto".
"By proactively commissioning this study, one of the largest of its
kind within the resources industry, it demonstrates a very clear
commitment to increased transparency, accountability, and action.
The high levels of confidence among employees that a significant
impact can be made in the next two years are an encouraging sign
that change can happen," she said.
Speaking about the investigation, Shine Lawyers class action
practice leader Sarah Thomson said the firm is aiming to determine
whether Rio Tinto and/or its related subsidiaries failed to take
adequate steps to eliminate discrimination and sexual harassment
for employees as far as possible in its workplaces and whether they
are liable.
The Broderick report, Thomson noted, found that a large proportion
of female employees described enduring everyday sexism "which
impacted self-esteem, personal relationships and their
employment".
"We do not live in a world that tolerates sexual abuse and
harassment in any workplace. Women have spoken out about instances
of sexual abuse and assault and ultimately being driven out of the
industry for speaking out. We cannot let any employer get away with
this conduct without consequence," she said.
Under the Sex Discrimination Act, Shine noted in a statement, an
employer can be held vicariously liable for harassment by employees
if the employer did not take "all reasonable steps to prevent the
employee from committing the harassment". [GN]
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over More than 25% Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ROBERT J.
SCARINGE, and CLAIRE MCDONOUGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-04566 (C.D. Cal.,
May 31, 2024) is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian
securities between Aug. 12, 2022 and Feb. 21, 2024, inclusive,
against the Defendants, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
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/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Rivian
had overstated demand for its electric vehicles ("EVs"); Rivian had
concealed the negative effect inflation and higher interest rates
were having on demand for its EVs; the number of orders in Rivian's
order bank had decreased due to cancellations and other factors;
and Rivian was failing to ramp up its production of EVs at the rate
it claimed, the suit alleges.
The Defendants' fraud began to be revealed on Feb. 28, 2023, after
the close of trading, when Rivian announced a lower-than-expected
2023 EV production target. On this news, Rivian's stock price fell
$3.54 per share, or more than 18 percent, to close at $15.76 per
share on March 1, 2023.
Then, on Feb. 21, 2024, after the close of trading, Rivian issued a
press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2023
financial results. As part of these results, Rivian revealed that
it planned to produce only 57,000 EVs in 2024, well below the
80,000 EVs expected by analysts. Rivian also revealed an adjusted o
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization
(EBITDA) loss of $2.7 billion expected for 2024, versus a $2.59
billion loss expected by analysts, blaming "economic and
geopolitical uncertainties and pressures, most notably the impact
of historically high interest rates."
On this news, Rivian's stock price fell $3.94 per share, or more
than 25 percent, to close at $11.45 per share on Feb. 22, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff acquired Rivian securities at artificially inflated
prices.
Rivian is an automotive manufacturer that develops and builds EVs
for both retail and commercial customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
SAFIAN & RUDOLPH: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Safian & Rudolph, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02362 (E.D.
Pa., May 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to make its
website, https://www.safianrudolph.com, accessible to legally blind
individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal
access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA").
During Plaintiff's visit to the Website, on April 10, 2024, he made
an attempt to purchase a ring or a similar alternative. While he
was browsing the website, he encountered many accessibility issues
such as "Skip to content" not being implemented, inaccessible
navigation dropdown menus, and many interactive elements being
hidden for screen readers. Due to the Defendant's failure to build
the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access
programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly
interact with the Website and was thus denied the benefit of
purchasing a ring, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff intends to frequent Defendant's physical location at
701 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106 once the accessibility
barriers are removed. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the
suit asserts.
Mr. Gomberg, a technically skilled individual and proficient user
of screen-reading software, uses Windows operating system-enabled
computer along with screen-reading software program Job Access With
Speech.
Safian & Rudolph operates the https://www.safianrudolph.com online
retail store, which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods including information about purchasing jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
SAGE HOME: Fails to Secure Customers, Employees' Info, Kisling Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY KISLING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SAGE HOME LOANS CORPORATION f/k/a LENOX FINANCIAL
MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a WESLEND FINANCIAL INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01167 (C.D. Cal., May 31, 2024) sues the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former the
Defendant's customers' and employees' personally identifiable
information from cybercriminals.
According to the complaint, the compromised information includes
name, date of birth, passport number, driver's license number,
federal identification number, state identification number, tax
identification number, Social Security information, financial
account information, phone number, physical address, and email
address.
On Dec. 19, 2023, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized entity
had gained access to consumer information on one of its computer
servers.
On Feb. 2, 2024, the Defendant customers and employees began
receiving their notices of the Data Breach informing them that its
investigation determined that their Private Information was
exposed.
There has been no assurance offered by the Defendant that all
personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed,
or that it has adequately enhanced its data security practices
sufficiently to avoid a similar breach of its network in the
future, the suit alleges.
Therefore, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at
an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering,
ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and
other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the Data Breach, the suit asserts.
Ms. Kisling is, and was, an individual citizen of the State of
Oklahoma residing in Sawyer, Oklahoma.
Sage is a financial services company with a focus on mortgage
lending.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
SAHOLA INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALI COLAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SAHOLA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03896 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024)
sues the Defendant for failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate Defendant's website, www.saholaflowers.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff was injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple
times, most recently on May 1, 2024 to access the Defendant's
Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's
products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal
access to the Defendant's online goods, content, and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a Turquoise floral
arrangement.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumer.
Mr. Colak is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Sahola is a floral company specializing in unique flower
arrangements, weddings, events, daily and weekly corporate and
residential accounts, holiday decor, fashion installations, and
gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SAINT GOBAIN: Class Settlement in Lampton Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN LAMPTON JR., v.
SAINT GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00398-GAF (W.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Gary Fenner entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement, and Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees, costs,
expenses and service award.
-- The Court awards Settlement Class Counsel attorney's fees in
the
amount of $454,433.27.
-- The Court finds these costs and expenses set forth by
Settlement
Class Counsel in the Fee Motion were reasonably incurred and
are
reimbursable from the fund.
-- Accordingly, the Court awards Settlement Class Counsel costs
and
expenses in the amount of $25,566.73.
The case is a consumer class action involving organic bonded
abrasive wheels. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Saint Gobain
Abrasives, Inc. supplied and sold Covered Products that were
defective because they failed to inform consumers that the Covered
Products have a shelf life.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"[A]ll Persons who purchased one or more Covered Products at
a
retail location in the United States and its territories
during
the Class Period for personal, family, or household
purposes."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) all Persons who
purchased or acquired the Covered Products for commercial or
business purposes, or resale; (ii) Defendant and its
employees;
(iii) any Person who properly and timely opts out pursuant to
this Agreement; (iv) federal, state, and local governments
(including all agencies and subdivisions thereof (but
employees
thereof are not excluded)); and (v) any judge who presides
over
the consideration of whether to approve the settlement of
this
class action and any member of their immediate family.
Saint-Gobain manufactures abrasive products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9fDqM at no extra
charge.[CC]
SENTINELONE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sentinelone, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 29, 2024, that on June 6, 2023, a securities
class action was filed against the company, its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, in the Northern District
of California, captioned "Nyren v. SentinelOne, Inc.," Case No.
4:23-cv-02982. The case has been consolidated with the case styled
"Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc.," Case No. 4:23-cv-02786.
The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders
who purchased or acquired shares of the company's Class A common
stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleges
that defendants made false or misleading statements about the
company's business, operations and prospects, including its annual
recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the case with the Johansson
case. On October 4, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating
both cases under the caption "In re SentinelOne, Inc. Securities
Litigation," Case No. 4:23-cv-02786 and appointing a lead
plaintiff. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.
SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity provider that delivers an
artificial intelligence-powered platform to enable autonomous
cybersecurity defense.
SHANER OPERATING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Paton Due Oct. 14
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY PATON, v. SHANER
OPERATING CORP., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01498-ALM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered a
preliminary pretrial order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties
shall be filed by July 14, 2024.
-- The parties agree that the motion for class certification shall
be
filed by Oct. 14, 2024.
-- All discovery shall be completed by Feb. 15, 2025.
-- Any proposed protective order or clawback agreement shall be
filed
with the Court by June 30, 2024.
-- Any dispositive motion shall be filed by Mar. 15, 2025.
-- Primary expert reports must be produced by Nov. 30, 2024.
-- Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by Dec. 30, 2024.
The case is an individual, collective, and class action in which
Plaintiff seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation individually and
on behalf of all individuals similarly situated under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Ohio state Constitutional Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed the Plaintiff and
other collective/class members and did not pay minimum wage
properly under the FLSA and Ohio Const. Article II, Section 34a all
hours worked.
Shaner operates a portfolio of hotels that offer an auditorium,
guest rooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, shops, and a soccer
training facility.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DzRtHU at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHONAZ FOODS: Haynes Files ADA Suit in W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shonaz Foods, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Michael Haynes, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Shonaz Foods, Inc., Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00407-RP (W.D. Tex., April 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shonaz Foods, Inc. doing business as Burger King --
https://www.bk.com/ -- is an American multinational chain of
hamburger fast food restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Bosco, Esq.
BOSCO BLESS PLLC
4034 Bishop Lane
Dallas, TX 75229
Phone: (214) 997-4434
Fax: (214) 237-4474
Email: john@boscobless.com
SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skopos Financial,
LLC. The case is styled as Stephanie Brown, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Skopos Financial, LLC d/b/a
Reprise Financial, Case No. 8:24-cv-01297 (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.
Skopos Financial, LLC doing business as Reprise Financial --
https://www.reprisefinancial.com/ -- offers small personal loans
with a simple application process and customized repayment
options.[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
SPOKEO INC: Court Certifies California and Ohio Classes in Kellman
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, et al., v.
SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Orrick entered an order:
-- granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for
the
California and Ohio classes:
California Viewed-Prior-to-Purchase Class (claims under
California
law; represented by proposed class representative Stephens):
"All California residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com and whose teaser profile was viewed by a user
immediately prior to purchasing a Spokeo.com subscription on or
after Nov. 19, 2019, where such teaser profile includes the
individual's name and home address."
Ohio Viewed-Prior-to-Purchase Class (claims under Ohio law;
represented by Plaintiff Williams):
"All Ohio residents who are not registered users of Spokeo.com
and
whose teaser profile was viewed by a user immediately prior to
purchasing a Spokeo.com subscription on or after Nov. 18, 2017,
where such teaser profile includes the individual's name and
home
address."
California Published Teaser Profile Class (claims under
California
law; represented by Plaintiffs Kellman and Stephens):
"All United States residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com and whose teaser profile is searchable on
www.spokeo.com, where such teaser profile includes the
individual's name and home address."
Ohio Published Teaser Profile Class (claims under Ohio law;
represented by Plaintiff Newell):
"All Ohio residents who are not registered users of Spokeo.com
and
whose teaser profile is searchable on www.spokeo.com, where
teaser
profile includes the individual's name and home address."
-- withdrawing the motion for the nationwide classes;
-- denying Spokeo's motion to exclude Naaman's declaration and
testimony, to exclude Weisbrot's declaration and testimony, and
to
strike; and
-- denying as moot the plaintiffs' motion to exclude Alfaro's
declaration and testimony.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in November 2021, and their
operative second amended complaint in September 2023.
Spokeo runs a website that collects consumer and public data from
various public sources and private vendors, associates that data
with particular names, and publishes it online.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KezWIF at no extra
charge.[CC]
SPORTSENGINE INC: Morales Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SportsEngine, Inc.
The case is styled as Christine Morales, Vanessa Williams, Carly
Charalambou, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SportsEngine, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02971-JGLC
(S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
SportsEngine -- https://www.sportsengine.com/ -- is part of NBC
Sports Next.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
STRYVE FOODS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bullock Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BULLOCK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRYVE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04131 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.stryve.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.
STRYVE FOODS, INC. is an emerging healthy snacking company. The
Company manufactures, markets, and sells healthy snacking products
such as beef sliced, grass-fed, sticks, and slabs with no sugar,
MSG, gluten, nitrates, and preservatives. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
TARGET CORP: Faces Arnold Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
DENISE ARNOLD; BLAIRE BROWN; and SANDRE WILSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04452 (N.D. Ill., May 30,
2024) is an action alleging violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant obtained
the biometric identifiers and biometric information of the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, including
scans of their facial geometry, without informing them in writing
or obtaining their written consent, as required by BIPA.
TARGET CORPORATION operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
161 N. Clark St., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 759-9700
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
Email: j.lopatka@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Kim E. Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 696-3732
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Melissa H. Harris, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
melissa.harris@ksfcounsel.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 16
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC) common stock
between November 2, 2022 and February 20, 2024. Teladoc provides
direct-to-consumer, online health services. One of Teladoc's
services is "BetterHelp," an online mental health counseling
platform. Teladoc also provides online primary care and chronic
disease management services.
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
Teladoc Health, Co. (TDOC) Misled Investors Regarding its Marketing
Spend and its Impact on Revenue
According to the complaint, on February 20, 2024, Teladoc released
Q4-2024 earnings. In the Form 10-K filed with the SEC, Teladoc
revealed its substantially increased advertising costs, which was
$668,854,000 up from $623,536,000 in 2022, while the associated
investor presentation revealed BetterHelp revenue fell $1 million
compared to the prior year, and fell approximately $10 million from
3Q-2023 to 4Q-2024. The Company also revealed BetterHelp lost
members over two consecutive quarters, despite the increased
advertising spend. The related earnings call revealed that revenue
was flat compared to the prior year and down 3% sequentially, well
below expectations. On this news, the price of Teladoc shares fell
$4.85, or over 23%, to close at $15.64 per share on February 21,
2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Teladoc Health, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
July 16, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Teladoc Health, Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
TESLA INC: Supreme Court Certifies Severe Racism Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hamza Fahmy, writing for KRON4, reports that the Alameda County
Superior Court certified a class action alleging "severe and
pervasive race harassment" against Black workers in Tesla's Fremont
factory, the order filed on May 17 said.
The court found that "the approximately 500 declarations in support
of and in opposition to this motion suggest that over a period of
approximately eight years, Tesla workers in the Fremont factory
heard the n-word and otherwise experienced conditions that might
reasonably be characterized as race harassment."
FORMAL COMPLAINTS
In 2017, Tesla created a "centralized internal tracking system to
document complaints and investigations," the complaint said.
Despite having a formal complaint system at the factory,
plaintiffs' declarations suggest that Tesla failed to take
"immediate and appropriate corrective action" regarding the
complaints.
According to the order, over 200 plaintiffs working at the Fremont
factory reported hearing the N-word, with 112 claiming they have
filed a complaint to management and 16 formally filed written
complaints in total.
Of the more than 200 Black workers who gave sworn statements for
the lawsuit, about two-thirds said they saw anti-Black graffiti,
including nooses, racial slurs and swastikas, and about
three-quarters said they heard Tesla workers refer to the Fremont
plant as "The Plantation" or the "Slave Ship," according to a court
filing. A quarter also said higher-ups called them the n-word.
Some of the other complaints include the following:
-- Plaintiff Adrianna Leaks states that she complained to a
supervisor, the supervisor was terminated, and there was no change
in the racist behaviors.
-- Plaintiff Albert Blakes asserts he complained to HR, and there
was no change in the racist behaviors.
-- Plaintiff Alvin Patterson states he complained to leads and
supervisors, and they denied that racism was a factor in
promotions. Patterson also contends that he complained about his
supervisor, was referred to HR, then received more harassment from
his supervisor, and was then warned by HR about his own workplace
conduct.
FORMAL REBUTTALS
The declarations submitted by Tesla suggest that if It was informed
about racist incidents, it took "immediate and appropriate
corrective action" to deal with them appropriately.
Tesla declarant Robert Brown is a supervisor who states that he has
observed workers use the N-word. In 2017 or 2018, "he observed an
incident involving the word and reported it to HR." Brown claims
that in 2019, he also counseled his team that music with the N-word
was not appropriate for the workplace.
Tesla declarant Philip Buchannan is a supervisor who states that an
employee reported to HR that a coworker called him a "monkey," that
"HR promptly investigated," and that Tesla "terminated the employee
who used the inappropriate language."
Tesla declarant Jeremiah Clark states, "I personally have seen
graffiti using racial slurs. When I see it, I see that it is
removed quickly by the building facilities team."
FUTURE ACTION
The lawsuit claimed that "pre-Civil Rights Era race discrimination"
was standard procedure at the Tesla plant and that race harassment
both continued and became widespread because Tesla, despite being
aware of it, did nothing to stop it.
Tesla said in a 2022 blog post that it "strongly opposes all forms
of discrimination and harassment" and claimed that it "has always
disciplined and terminated employees who engage in misconduct,
including those who use racial slurs or harass others in different
ways."
Since this is a class action, the lawsuit will now revolve around
whether there was a pattern of widespread racial abuse at the
Fremont factory, whether Tesla knew or should have known about it,
and if Tesla did know, whether it "failed to take immediate and
appropriate action to stop it."
The hundreds or thousands of workers who may wish to seek damages
from Tesla over their treatment at the factory must file separate,
individual lawsuits and answers to the three questions would
"establish common facts" to simplify those cases, Alameda County
Superior Court Judge Noel Wise wrote.
"There is much work to do, but we believe we will succeed in
showing at trial that there has been a pattern and practice of
pervasive race harassment at Tesla's Fremont factory, that Tesla
knew or should have known about it, and that Tesla did not do
enough to clean it up and stop it from happening again and again,"
said Matthew Helland, of Nichols Kaster, LLP, co-lead counsel for
the plaintiffs. [GN]
TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Bid for Class Status Must be Filed by July 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASTILLO DE MARTINEZ, et
al., v. TIER-ONE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-02339 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Loren
L. Alikhan an order that the deadlines in the case shall continue
to be tolled and that the parties shall file a Joint Motion for
Class Certification for the Purposes of Settlement on or before
July 8, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Tier is a provider of commercial janitorial, building maintenance
and specialty property services.[CC]
TIM HORTONS: BC Supreme Court Dismisses No Hire Clause Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that The BC
Supreme Court has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against
Tim Hortons, ruling that there are no genuine issues for trial
concerning the "no-hire" clause in its franchise agreements.
The plaintiff, a former employee, sought to certify a class of all
current and former employees of Tim Hortons in Canada, alleging
that the clause unlawfully suppressed wages and restricted
employment mobility.
The plaintiff, Samir Latifi, worked at a Tim Hortons restaurant in
Surrey, BC, in 2012 and filed the lawsuit on behalf of all Tim
Hortons employees in Canada. The defendant, The TDL Group Corp.
(TDL), owns the Tim Hortons brand and acts as the franchisor for
Tim Hortons restaurants in Canada. The "no-hire" clause in question
prevents franchisees from employing individuals from other Tim
Hortons franchises without written approval from TDL.
The lawsuit claimed that the "no-hire" clause violated the
Competition Act by suppressing wages and limiting job mobility,
thus benefiting Tim Hortons' bottom line. However, most of these
claims were struck down in a previous judgment, leaving only the
claims of civil conspiracy based on predominant purpose and the
tort of unlawful means.
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff's case lacked evidence
to support the claims of civil conspiracy and unlawful means.
Specifically, the court determined that there was no genuine issue
for trial regarding whether TDL and its franchisees conspired to
harm employees. The court emphasized that the predominant purpose
of the "no-hire" clause was to protect the investment in training
employees, not to injure them.
James Gregoire, TDL's vice president of franchise operations,
testified that the primary purpose of the "no-hire" clause was to
ensure franchisees did not lose trained employees to other Tim
Hortons franchisees, which would protect their investment in
training staff. Gregoire's testimony was deemed credible and
uncontradicted by any evidence from the plaintiff.
The plaintiff relied on expert reports from economist Rafael Gomez,
who argued that "no-hire" and similar clauses generally suppress
wages and reduce job mobility. However, the court found that
Gomez's evidence, based primarily on US studies and non-compete
clauses in different industries, did not directly address the
intent of TDL and its franchisees when agreeing to the "no-hire"
clause.
The court noted that proving civil conspiracy requires evidence of
a predominant purpose to injure the plaintiff, which was not
established. The court also highlighted that even if wage
suppression was an effect of the "no-hire" clause, it did not prove
that the primary intent of the clause was to harm employees.
Additionally, the court pointed out that the "no-hire" clause was
no longer enforced by TDL as of September 2018, which further
weakened the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff's allegations were
based on the effects of the clause, but there was insufficient
evidence to show that these effects were intended to harm
employees.
Ultimately, the BC Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favour
of TDL, dismissing the plaintiff's claims of civil conspiracy and
unlawful means of tort. As a result, the court did not consider the
plaintiff's application for class certification, as there was no
remaining action to certify. [GN]
UNION SECURITY: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order as follows:
1. Certifying Counts I, II, and IV-VIII as a class action on
behalf
of the following Class under Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule
23(b)(2):
"All participants in an ERISA-covered plan that provided or
offered dependent child life insurance that is or was insured
by
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada or Union Security
Insurance
Company ("USIC") at any time from and including Aug. 25, 2015
until the date that the Court enters preliminary approval of
the
settlement and for which a participant paid premiums for at
least one child in such dependent child life insurance
coverage
and either (i) had no enrolled children who met the
definition
of dependent child under the policy while such premiums were
paid for coverage or (ii) had a claim for dependent child
life
insurance denied because the child's age was beyond the
oldest
allowable age for a dependent child under the applicable
policy
or based on the child's age and because the child was not a
full-time student; and the beneficiaries of such persons."
Excluded from the Class are (1) any fiduciaries of the Plans
with decision-making or administrative authority related to
the
establishment, administration, funding or interpretation of
the
Plan, (2) persons not eligible for benefits under Section IV
of
this Settlement Agreement. Additionally, any person does not
meet the requirements of Section (ii) of the Class Definition
and will be excluded unless (a) Defendants identify that
person
as a Class Member With Denied Claim or (b) the claim for
dependent child life insurance was denied solely because the
child's age was beyond the oldest allowable age for a
dependent
child under the applicable policy or a claim denied solely
based
on the child’s age and because the child was not a
full-time
student.
2. Appointing Plaintiff Antoinette Lewis as the Class
Representative;
3. Appointing R. Joseph Barton of Barton & Downes LLP, Adam
Harrison Garner of The Garner Firm, Ltd., and Jonathan
Feigenbaum as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to Rule
23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
4. Appointing a Settlement Administrator.
5. Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement dated May
23,
2024, between Plaintiff Antoinette Lewis and Defendants Union
Security Insurance Company and Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule
23(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. Approving the Proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and
the
Proposed Class Notice Instructions to the Policyholders/Plan
Administrators as to form and content and the plan for
dissemination of the Notices to the Class and the
Policyholders/Plan Administrators as satisfying the
requirements
of Rule 23(c)(2) and (e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and due process.
7. Setting various dates and deadlines in order for the Court to
evaluate whether the Settlement should be given Final
Approval,
to hear any objections by Class Members, to evaluate
Plaintiff's
counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses:
USIC is a national provider of Medicare Supplement insurance
solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6HtcUk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES, LLP
1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
colin@bartondownes.com
- and -
Adam Harrison Garner, Esq.
Melanie J. Garner, Esq.
THE GARNER FIRM, LTD.
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 645-5955
Facsimile: (215) 645-5960
E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com
melanie@garnerltd.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Settles COVID-19 Tuition Lawsuit for $4.95MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Camarillo, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that the
University of Chicago will pay $4.95 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit filed by students and former students seeking
refunds on tuition after classes went remote amid the COVID-19
pandemic.
The lawsuit was filed in May 2020 by former student Arica Kincheloe
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
claiming that students were entitled to partial refunds of tuition
because of remote instruction instead of in-person classes
beginning in the spring quarter of 2020.
The suit also claimed a breach of contract and unjust enrichment by
the university.
The settlement applies to all students and former students who were
enrolled in any of the university's undergraduate and graduate
programs at any time between January 1, 2020, through the end of
spring quarter 2020, according to court documents. Those who
qualify will receive at least $25 from the settlement.
"The university is proud of the rigorous educational experience and
support it provided to students when it moved to remote learning
for spring quarter 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic," the
university said in a statement. "The university believes
plaintiffs' claims are without merit and looks forward to putting
this matter behind us."
The parties entered into a settlement agreement on Nov. 21, 2023,
court documents state. The court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on Dec. 7, 2023. Final approval was granted after a
hearing on May 23.
The settlement agreement "should not in any event be offered or
received as evidence of, a presumption, concession or an admission
of liability" on the part of the university, court documents
state.
Similar lawsuits have been filed against other schools both in the
city and in the rest of the country in the wake of the coronavirus
outbreak.
A suit filed against DePaul University in 2020 was dismissed on
Feb. 2, 2021, according to court records. The judge in that case
ruled that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the
university promised its students that classes would be held on
campus or in-person in its academic materials.
Earlier this year, George Washington University reached a $5.4
million settlement with former students alleging the school broke
its contract with them over online-classes during the pandemic.
Cornell University reached a $3 million settlement with students in
2023 over a similar lawsuit. [GN]
US CUSTOMS: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Set for August 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN SANCHEZ MORA, et
al., v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-02430-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson
entered a case management scheduling order as follows:
The Court therefore issues the below order, which resolves ECF No.
30.
1. Last day to file dispositive motions: Nov. 1, 2024
2. Motion Hearing (motion to dismiss & Aug. 27, 2024
motion for class certification)
3. Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Aug. 5, 2024
4. Opposition to motion to dismiss; reply in Aug. 5, 2024
support of class certification
5. Opposition to Class Certification July 15, 2024
6. Motion to Dismiss/Response to Complaint July 15, 2024
7. Case Management Conference Statements June 20, 2024
On Apr. 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, along with a
Motion for class certification that same day.
On May 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs re-noticed their motion.
On May 24, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation with Proposed
Order Setting response and briefing schedule and initial case
management conference.
US Customs prevents people from entering the country illegally or
bringing anything harmful or illegal into the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hu4UTM at no extra
charge.[CC]
VESTIS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Vestis Corporation ("Vestis" or the "Company") (NYSE:
VSTS). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
The class action concerns whether Vestis and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
You have until July 16, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Vestis securities during the Class Period. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On May 2, 2024, Vestis issued a press release reporting its
financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2024. The
Company reported revenue of $705 million, a mere 0.9%
year-over-year increase. Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Kimberly
T. Scott was quoted in the press release, stating, "Our results in
the quarter and our outlook for the year are not in line with
expectations." In the press release, Vestis also provided a
"Revised Fiscal Year 2024 Outlook," reporting that it "now
expect[ed] to deliver fiscal 2024 revenue growth in the range of
[negative] (1)% to 0%." During the corresponding earnings call that
day, CEO Scott explained the "challenges" facing the Company
"related to sales productivity and deliberate moderated pricing
actions." Scott went on to explain, "We also made the recent and
deliberate decision to moderate pricing actions in the second
quarter and the back half of the fiscal year in order to realize
improved retention while we enhance our services processes." The
pricing decision, Scott added, "is negatively impacting our revenue
and EBITDA in the second half of the year." Later during the same
call, Scott revealed that "service gaps" had "driven price
sensitivity." Scott added that "we know that more than 70% of the
[customer] cancellations are due to causes that are within our
control."
On this news, Vestis's stock price fell $8.31 per share, or 44.99%,
to close at $10.16 per share on May 2, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
VIEUX VINS: Olivier et al. Sue Over Untimely Wage Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
MIKE OLIVIER, JEAN DARY BELMONT, THENIO LOUISSAINT, ARRIS JEAN
WISBERT and PATRICK NICOLAS, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIEUX VINS GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03776 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2024) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages liquidated damages, and statutory
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
(NYLL), and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.
One of the Plaintiffs, Jean Dary Belmont, was employed by Defendant
as a driver, helper and warehouse worker from in or about August
2006 until in or about March 2024. During the Plaintiffs'
employment with Defendant, more than 25 percent of Plaintiffs' time
was spent performing physical tasks. However, Defendant paid
Plaintiffs' wages semi-monthly in violation of NYLL. Among other
things, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay, says the suit.
Headquartered Vieux Vins is a Delaware limited liability company
that operates as an importer and a distributor of wines. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Stays Discovery Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ravarino, et al., v. Voya
Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01658 (D. Conn., Filed
Dec. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order as
follows:
-- The motion to compel is referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for disposition, and the Clerk of Court is instructed to
assign a Magistrate Judge for that purpose. Given this
ongoing discovery dispute, the discovery deadline hereby is
stayed
pending resolution of that dispute.
-- It is not apparent at this point that the briefing schedule for
the class certification motion will require amendment, and so
those deadlines will remain unchanged, but the parties are
welcome
to move for extensions of time as appropriate.
-- Further, the court grants Plaintiffs' motion to seal.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.)
Voya is an American financial, retirement, investment and insurance
company.[CC]
WAWA INC: Appeals Atty.'s Fees Ruling in Data Security Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wawa, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and/or Opinion Order dated April 9, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Case No.
2-19-cv-06019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
Defendant Wawa, Inc., which operates a chain of convenience stores
and gas stations throughout the eastern United States, experienced
a data security incident in March 2019, when hackers accessed
Wawa's point-of-sale systems and installed malware that targeted
in-store payment terminals and gas station fuel dispensers. The
hackers obtained customer payment card information over the next
several months. This information was later made available for
purchase on the "dark web." Wawa disclosed the data breach in
December 2019. Lawsuits followed. The Court's case management plan
created three distinct tracks for the litigation: the Consumer
Track, the Employee Track, and the Financial Institution Track.
On April 9, 2024, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter signed a Memorandum
Opinion and/or Order granting the requested attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and Class Representative awards.
Specifically, the Court held that upon consideration of the
November 24, 2023 Judgment and Opinion of the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals vacating the Court's fee award and remanding for further
proceedings, the arguments made on the record during the Court's
post-remand hearings held on December 5, 2023 and February 2, 2024,
the parties' post-remand declarations regarding the fee award,
Consumer Track Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses,
and Service Awards and all responses thereto, and the Third Amended
Settlement Agreement dated February 4, 2022 ("the Settlement
Agreement"):
1. Consumer Track Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Service Awards is GRANTED;
2. Berger Montague PC, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, Fine, Kaplan & Black RPC, and Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C., as Consumer Track Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, and
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, are awarded a lump sum of
$3.2 million for attorneys' fees, expenses, costs of settlement
administration, and class representative awards to be paid by Wawa
in accordance with the Settlement Agreement as outlined in the
accompanying Memorandum;
3. Class Counsel have the discretion to allocate the attorneys'
fees and expenses among themselves, other Plaintiffs' counsel that
performed common benefit work in the Consumer Track action, and the
settlement administrator, in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement as outlined in the Memorandum;
4. The Court confirms the appointment of Kenneth Brulinski,
Kelly Donnelly Bruno, Amanda Garthwaite, Marisa Graziano, Tracey
Lucas, Marcus McDaniel, Joseph Muller, April Pierce, Nicole
Portnoy, Nakia Rolling, Eric Russell, Michael Sussman, Charmissha
Tingle, and Kasan Laster as the Settlement Class Representatives;
and
5. The Settlement Class Representatives are each awarded a
service award in the amount of $1,000, to be paid by Wawa out of
the $3.2 million lump sum in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement as outlined in the accompanying Memorandum.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Wawa, Inc. Data Security
Litigation, Case No. 24-1874, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, filed on May 15, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by:
Adam E. Schulman, Esq.
HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (610) 457-0856
Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAWN MCGLADE and KAREN MCGLADE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; INSPIRE FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION and INSIGHT CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; GREATER CINCINNATI CREDIT UNION, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; and KENNETH
BRULINSKI, are represented by:
Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
HAVILAND HUGHES
201 S Maple Street, Suite 110
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 609-4661
- and -
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS
200 Barr Harbor Drive
Four Tower Bridge, Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
- and -
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
- and -
Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
3355 W Alabama Street, Suite 240
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 528-6700
- and -
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG
44 S Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
- and -
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
- and -
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
- and -
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
HAUSFELD
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
- and -
J. Todd Savarese, Esq.
80 N 2nd Street Pike
Churchville, PA 18966
Telephone: (215) 322-7848
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
BONI ZACK & SNYDER
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0201
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED
80 S 8th Street
1100 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
- and -
Jonathan L. Kudulis, Esq.
KUDULIS REISINGER & PRICE
2000 SouthBridge Parkway, Suite 415
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (800) 666-3151
Defendant-Appellee WAWA INC. is represented by:
Ezra D. Church, Esq.
Kristin M. Hadgis, Esq.
Eric C. Kim, Esq.
Gregory T. Parks, Esq.
Terese M. Schireson, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
2222 Market Street, 12th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5710
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bertocchini Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY BERTOCCHINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01322-G (N.D. Tex., May 30, 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.
WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC specializes in customized healthcare
benefits administration, as well as accounting, bookkeeping, and
related auditing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
WESTGATE RESORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hilbert Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREL HILBERT, v. WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-04203
(S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, update and operate its website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law, the suit claims.
While visiting his parents in New York City in February 2023 and on
June 3, 2023, July 11, Dec. 14, 2023 and again on April 8, 2024,
the Plaintiff visited and attempted to access the Defendant's
Website using screen-reading software in order to book reservations
at the Defendant's Westgate New York Grand Central Hotel.
Regrettably, he was unable to do so due to inaccessibility issues.
Despite his efforts, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience
similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack
of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively
barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and
benefits of the Defendant's goods and services, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, actual and liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 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.
Mr. Hilbert is a visually impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software. Mr. Hilbert is, however, a proficient VoiceOver
screen-reader user. He has visited and attempted to access the
Defendant's Website using a screen-reader on numerous occasions.
The Defendant owns and operates the
https://www.westgateresorts.com/hotels/new-york/midtown-manhattan/westgate-new-york-grand-central/
online website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Siegel, Esq.
ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC
888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (771) 220-6116
Facsimile: (202) 223-6625
E-mail: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 7
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KLARE, v. WESTLAKE
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06386-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that:
1. The Stipulation is granted as set forth in the Order.
2. All expert discovery shall be completed by Sept. 6, 2024. The
parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures
no
later than July 12, 2024. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures
shall be served no later than August 9, 2024.
3. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later
than
October 7, 2024, and noticed for hearing regularly under the
Local Rules. Any untimely or non-conforming motion will be
denied. The motion for class certification shall comply with
the
requirements set forth in the Court's Order Re: Motions for
Class Certification issued contemporaneously with the filing
of
this Order.
4. All remaining deadlines are vacated. The court will set dates
and deadlines for summary judgment, trial, the pretrial
conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after the
resolution of the motion for class certification.
5. Absent exceptional circumstances, no further extensions will
be
granted.
Westlake offers auto finance, equity loans, and other financial
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RVYWdX at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZEROO GRAVITY: Bid for Class Settlement Initial Approval Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sara Ochoa v. Zeroo
Gravity Games LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05896-GW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement,
provisional certification of settlement class, and approval of
procedure for and form of notice.
The Court has a fiduciary duty to the members of the Settlement
Class, all of whom are absent at this pre-certification settlement
juncture.
Because the parties have agreed to a clear sailing agreement for
substantial attorney fees in a settlement agreement the Court does
not find fair, adequate, or reasonable, the Court would DENY the
Motion
The parties have agreed to define the Settlement Class as:
"All individuals located within the United States who during
the
Class Period, made purchases in the Zeroo Gravity Mobile Games,
and who are not otherwise subject to the exclusions."
Excluded from the Class are: (a) officers and directors of
Zeroo
Gravity and its corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or
any entity in which Zeroo Gravity or AppLovin have a
controlling
interest, and the legal representatives, successors, or
assignees
of any such excluded persons or entities; and (b) the Court.
The Class Period is defined as "Jan. 1, 2019 through the
Preliminary Approval Order Date."
The Court will begin by addressing the fact that the Settlement
does not provide any form of cash payment to the Settlement Class.
Instead, it proposes to compensate the Settlement Class by
providing in-app credits to the ZGG Games.
The Court recognizes that a settlement consisting of cash payments
might be small, but that certainly does not obviate the need for
fair, adequate, and reasonable compensation to the Settlement
Class.
The crux of the Plaintiffs' allegations is that the ZGG Games are
illegal forms of gambling under various state laws and that certain
advertisements deployed within the ZGG Games are false and
misleading.
On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs together filed a Third Amended
Complaint which – in addition to adding Brown as a plaintiff –
also added claims alleging that the ZGG Games violated California
gambling laws.
ZGG operates mobile casino games, including "Cash Tornado
Slots-Casino," "Jackpot Master Slots-Casino," and "Jackpot Friends
Slots Casino."
A copy of the Court's ruling dated May 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oPVLTR at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZOOM VIDEO: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for June 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2024 that the United
States District Court for the NDCA set the hearing on the
preliminary approval of a settlement in a securities suit on June
13, 2024.
On April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020, securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company and two of its officers
in the United States District Court for the NDCA.
The plaintiffs are purported stockholders of the Company. The
complaints allege, among other things, that it violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 by making false
and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about its
data privacy and security measures. The complaints seek unspecified
damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On July 17, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement (the "Stipulation") to resolve this matter.
Under the terms of the stipulation, in exchange for the release and
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in
the matter, it agreed to pay and/or cause its insurance carriers to
pay a total of $150.0 million.
The Stipulation and settlement remain subject to preliminary and
final approval by the court.
On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order staying further
proceedings in the matter pending the filing of a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.
On October 17, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.
A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
is scheduled for June 13, 2024.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a software company based in
California.
ZYNEX MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Commission Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ZYNEX MEDICAL, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV440194 (Cal. Super., May 30, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all earned wages
(including commission wages) and asserts that the Plaintiff and the
Unpaid Wage Class have sustained economic damages, and are entitled
to recover economic and statutory damages and penalties and other
appropriate relief as a result of the Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff's and other employees' wages were consistently paid
late, in violation of Labor Code section 204. For example, the
Plaintiff's non-commission wages earned from November 1-15, 2023,
were paid on Dec. 1, 2023, and the Plaintiff's non-commission wages
earned from Nov. 16-30, 2023, were paid on Dec. 15, 2023. With
respect to commissions, the Defendants' payday practices were also
unlawful. Specifically, commissions were paid approximately one
month or more after they were earned.
In addition to paying employees consistently late, the Defendants
have also failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other employees for all
business expenses they incurred in the discharge of their duties,
the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Territory Manager
from October 2022 until March 2024.
Zynex is a medical device manufacturer that produces and markets
electrotherapy devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
Poya Ghasri, Esq.
Nancy Goodes, Esq.
MARQUEE LAW GROUP
9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445 East Tower
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 275-1844
Facsimile: (310) 275-1801
E-mail: tuvia@marqueelaw.com
poya@marqueelaw.com
nancy@marqueelaw.com
[*] Latham & Watkins Foresees Increase in UK Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latham & Watkins LLP reports that while class actions are well
established in the US, they are increasingly common in the UK,
driven by market volatility, availability of litigation funding,
legal reforms, regulatory settlements, and growing scrutiny of
companies by consumers, investors, and activists. The versatility
of available procedures in England make it an attractive
jurisdiction for litigation and we foresee more, and larger claims,
whether instead of or in parallel to US proceedings.
Our expert cross-border teams have significant class action
experience and are currently acting in a number of the largest
cases in this area in the English courts. In this article, we share
our insights from such cases -- with a focus on the growing threat
of claims under Section 90A of the Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 (FSMA).
Whatever the grounds for a claim, it is clear that class actions
can be very costly. Corporates and M&A deal teams therefore need to
engage meaningfully and early by leveraging expert outside legal
counsel.
SPOTLIGHT: SECTION 90A FSMA
While the UK offers multiple routes to bringing a class action,
including common law and a range of competition, data, and ESG
claims (see "Common Grounds for UK Class Action" box), UK
shareholder claims are in the spotlight. The number of Section 90A
FSMA cases is currently still relatively modest and the
availability of class action shareholder claims in the UK -- when
compared with the US -- is somewhat more limited (and can only --
so far at least -- be pursued on an "opt-in" basis, i.e., requiring
shareholders to actively sign up to the litigation). However, we
are seeing more of such actions being pursued, with numbers
ever-increasing.
Several factors are driving this growth. Following a US Supreme
Court decision which effectively barred US securities actions
without a US nexus and necessitated investors to pursue such claims
in other jurisdictions, potential claimants are looking beyond the
US, particularly in relation to securities claims. Further, the
extension of legislation in recent years to cover corporate
disclosures other than in financial statements, and to include
liability for dishonest delays in publishing information, has
created a valuable right for shareholders to claim against UK
listed companies under Section 90A FSMA. Section 90A FSMA claims
are of specific relevance to listed companies, but deal teams
contemplating a take-private transaction also need to consider
carefully the possibility of shareholder action in the UK as
against the previously publicly listed company.
When actions are progressing, they are complex, costly, and need to
be closely managed. The first Section 90A FSMA claim to go to trial
in the UK was heard in 2022, providing some limited guidance for
the progress of future claims. However, outstanding questions
remain regarding the nature of disclosures necessary, and the
resulting liability regime in respect of any failures. In
particular, questions remain around the materiality thresholds for
disclosures in companies' public statements and the extent that
investors bringing claims will be required to prove reliance on the
companies' statements (or failure to make statements). Care also
needs to be taken around matters that companies might consider to
be privileged, but which might potentially be disclosable to
shareholders in any subsequent action. Companies should be careful
not to create unnecessary, potentially disclosable, documents and
should engage early with external counsel to consider how to best
record (and preserve) decision-making and other information.
OTHER UK CLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS TO WATCH
Another of the key trends we expect is for class actions to come to
the forefront in areas including environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) (where mandatory climate-related financial
disclosures potentially heighten the risk of shareholder claims),
competition law (where "opt-out" class actions are more common),
and data-intensive sectors (where increased regulation has led to
an uptick in efforts to obtain compensation on behalf of data
subjects, the number of which can reach into thousands, or even
millions, of people). We have also seen a growing trend of
investors, activists, or, indeed, litigation funders shoe-horning
complaints into either Section 90A FSMA or the competition opt-out
regimes, including complaints that are not really about misleading
investors or typical anti-competitive behaviour. Instead, if
activists consider that a company has not met certain ESG
standards, claims, or adopted goals, they are looking to pursue
class actions either through the Section 90A FSMA regime (claiming
that the company has misled the market around its ESG compliance)
or through the competition regime (claiming that the ESG
non-compliant behaviour only arose because of an abuse of a
dominant position). A cross-practice approach to responding to such
claims is essential.
In terms of the market more generally, the UK Financial Conduct
Authority (FCA) wants to attract and retain more listed companies
in the UK. One of the FCA's proposed regulatory changes is the
removal of the requirement to publish a circular or receive
shareholder approval for significant M&A transactions. Instead,
Class 1 transactions will only trigger a requirement on the company
to release a detailed transaction announcement. This reform would
make more UK listed companies competitive in M&A auction processes
by reducing the regulatory burden. However, while it is currently
anticipated that less information has to be disclosed, the provided
information will be more heavily scrutinised, and so companies
should remain alive to increased litigation risk around such
statements.
MITIGATE RISK BY ENGAGING EARLY
Companies need to ensure that all disclosures and announcements are
accurate, defensible, and supported by good internal record-keeping
and governance to audit and evidence the basis for making the
statements in the first place. This is the case even in respect of
seemingly anodyne statements (for example, statements around having
good corporate governance structures in place). Expert outside
counsel can help to review the accuracy, scope, and framing of
disclosures and other announcements, mindful of the potential for
future claims.
In the context of M&A transactions specifically, deal teams need to
be alive to the risk that shareholders may push an agenda to
challenge the direction of a deal. Beyond that, corporates seeking
to stem class action risks should leverage experienced legal
counsel and work to manage communications internally (e.g., with
the board, so they can validly sign off on disclosures and help to
assuage the concerns of senior individuals, such as directors, who
could find themselves targeted with personal liability for certain
statements being made) and externally (e.g., with the market,
target investors, and insurers). Particular care needs to be taken
in take-private transactions, as historic claims could be raised
against the company in future years (and typically they are not
pursued in the UK until right at the cusp of the expiration of
limitation periods). Careful diligence regarding the risks of any
such claims needs to be undertaken and should be discussed with
experienced counsel teams.
CONCLUSION
Although we are still in the relatively early stages of usage and
management of class action processes in the UK, the UK is moving
closer to the US system through the introduction of opt-out class
actions in competition law and developing jurisprudence regarding
other ways of the courts managing group litigation, which removes
some of the burden of forming a claimant class.
Class actions remain viable, potentially highly lucrative, and
increasingly attractive. As claimants continue to push boundaries
in seeking paths to redress, companies need to get ahead of the
curve. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ben Nye Files for Bankruptcy Due to Talc Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Rodgers of asbestos.com reports that makeup brand Ben Nye
Co. Inc. files for bankruptcy protection to avoid talc lawsuits.
Professional makeup brand Ben Nye, popular with film, stage and
modeling makeup artists, has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in the midst of lawsuits. The suits claim its products contain
asbestos-contaminated talc. The move could allow the company to
reorganize while putting its many talc lawsuits on hold.
The company says it stopped using talc in its face powders in
January 2024, but talc is still being used in other products. Ben
Nye's talc suppliers claim they conducted an analysis and no
asbestos was ever found in the talc they provided to the company.
According to a March 11, 2024 bankruptcy filing, Ben Nye has
estimated assets of about $1 million to $10 million and liabilities
estimated at $100,000 to $500,000. The company says it has enough
cash to stay in business and has no plans to change the quality of
its product. Ben Nye claims the bankruptcy won't affect wages and
benefits for its 35 employees in Los Angeles.
In a letter emailed to the digital publication Beauty Independent,
Ben Nye president Dana Nye wrote: "The company has incurred
monumental legal fees to defend itself. As a family-owned company
we reached the point where we could not continue to pay such
fees."
Nye continued, "Despite the painful bankruptcy process, we believe
this is the best decision to protect our business. This will allow
us to move forward to focus on our business rather than to
constantly fight claims thrown at us."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall's 2-Step Asbestos Bankruptcy Avoids SC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Ochsner of Bloomberg Law reports that the Supreme Court
declined to weigh in on a key element of the bankruptcy strategy
that some companies use to shield themselves from liability.
Justices declined to hear whether manufacturing giant
Georgia-Pacific can obtain a litigation shield through the
bankruptcy of Bestwall LLC, an affiliate it created to handle
asbestos lawsuits. After Georgia-Pacific placed Bestwall into
bankruptcy in 2017, it obtained a court order protecting itself
from liability.
The litigation shield is a core benefit of the Texas Two-Step, a
legal strategy in which a company creates a corporate entity,
transfers liability to it and places it into bankruptcy, thereby
obtaining a pause on litigation. Johnson & Johnson has also
attempted to use the maneuver to address widespread claims that its
talc products caused cancer.
Asbestos claimants asked the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit to determine that the legal protection granted by the US
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina
couldn't be extended to Georgia-Pacific. The Fourth Circuit
rejected their arguments.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Tosses LTL's Suit Over Medical Article
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Woolston of Law360 reports that a New Jersey federal judge
tossed a suit from the bankrupt talc unit of Johnson & Johnson, LTL
Management, accusing three doctors of damaging its business through
a medical journal article it claimed was backed by "junk science,"
ruling that the doctors having served as expert witnesses in the
Garden State is not enough to show that the court has jurisdiction
over its claims.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Awards $260MM in Talc Case Against J&J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reports that in
the latest talcum powder mesothelioma trial filed against Johnson &
Johnson, an Oregon jury has ordered consumer giant Johnson &
Johnson to pay $260 million in compensatory and punitive damages to
a 48-year-old woman who accuses the company's iconic baby powder
product of being contaminated with asbestos and causing her deadly
illness.
Johnson & Johnson has spent the last several years battling against
accusations that their iconic talc-based baby powder product was
contaminated with the carcinogenic mineral asbestos and has led to
malignant mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. The company is currently
facing over 60,000 outstanding personal injury claims against it,
which it has attempted to evade through a controversial bankruptcy
maneuver while simultaneously negotiating a settlement with
victims. Its last settlement offer was for $6.48 billion.
While litigation of the bankruptcy filing temporarily halted
individual claims from being held, they recently resumed, allowing
some victims to have their day in court. Mrs. Lee's case cited her
lifelong exposure to the product, beginning from when her mother
used it on her as an infant. The company argued against its
liability for her illness, saying that her asbestos exposure had
come from a factory near where she had grown up.
Despite Johnson & Johnson claiming that their baby powder product
does not cause mesothelioma or ovarian cancer, and pointing to
decades of scientific studies supporting its safety, the victim's
attorneys were able to point to a growing body of evidence that
talc is indeed linked to the rare and deadly disease. After hearing
both sides, the Portland area jury awarded Mrs. Lee and her husband
$60 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive
damages.
*********
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 ***