/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240611.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 11, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 117 Headlines 2112 HIGHWAY: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties 3M COMPANY: Acueducto Comunidad Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Sindicato De Bomberos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ABBOTSFORD, BC: Court Certifies Sumas Prairie Flood Class Action ABBVIE INC: Reese Sues Over Unlawful Removal Bylaw AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Weiss Files Suit in D. New Jersey ALLIANCE REALTY: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties ALROSE ALLEGRIA: Colak Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANTHEM COMPANIES: Ordered to Produce Relevant Documents APPLE INC: Rodgers Suit Hits Smartphone Market Monopoly ASCENSION HEALTH: Radley Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ASPEN RT 9: Maurer Sues Over ADA Violation AT&T INC: Murphy Files Suit in D. Minnesota AUDATEX NORTH: May Be Responsible for Suit Settlement, Court Says B.D. TRANSPORT: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 15 BANQUE DU LIBAN: Najjar Sues Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme BARILLA AMERICA: Court Certifies False Ads Class Action Lawsuit BAY AREA HEART: Fischer Sues Over Data Security Breach, Cyberattack BBST LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Says BELK INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Danso Suit Claims BIC USA: Faces Class Action Over Violations of Maine's PFAS Law BKS/ML AMERICAN: Parties Must File Status Report by August 30 BOEM INC: Faces Conner Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOW PLUMBING: Court Grants Emergency Motion for Curative Action BRHPAN II-GEORGIA: Brazier Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky CANADA: Court Certifies Suit Over Discrimination of CAF Members CANADA: Indigenous People Can Apply Claims in Suit Settlement CANDLEWOOD ASSOCIATES: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties CAPITAL FITNESS: Mercado Sues Over Biometric Data Collectiion CARDINAL GROUP: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties CENCORA INC: Faces Bradford Suit Over Data Security Failures CENCORA INC: Gerber Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CENCORA INC: McQuillen and Stow Sue Over Private Data Breach CENCORA INC: Soward Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CHARTSWAP LLC: Piskothy Suit Removed to M.D. Florida CHAUPAI LLC: Fernandez Files Suit Over Inaccessible Website CIGARETTE STORE: 46 East 65th Street Suit Removed to S.D. New York CIGARETTE STORE: Smith Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas CLARITY SERVICES: Mee Sues Over Unlawful Lending Practices COLUMBUS FAMILY: Settlement Deal in Morrison Tossed w/o Prejudice COMMUNITY FIRST CREDIT: Thomson Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin CONAGRA BRANDS: Wimberly Sues Over Contaminated Canned Goods DENTEGRA INSURANCE: Faces Ehli Suit Over Alleged Data Breach DESIGNS BY MILLO: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DOLCE & GABBANA: Brown Sues Over Botched NFT Deliveries EAST HARBOR: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELI LILLY: Richards Appeals Ruling in Discrimination Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Court Certifies Securities Fraud Class Action ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Business Practices EQUIFAX INC: Sued Over Electronic Verification Market Monopoly EXCEL INTERIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blasinghim Alleges FAT BRANDS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Davis Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas FIVE STARS: Faces Collado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. FLORIDA: Judge Reschedules Medicaid Eligibility Class Suit Trial FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson et al. Sue for Police Brutality GENERAL DYNAMICS: Scharpf Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir. GENERAL MILLS: Davis et al. Sue Over Race Discrimination at Work GOLD MEDAL: Faces Wertz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa. GREATPLAINS FINANCE: Ransom Files 3rd Circuit Appeal HERTZ GLOBAL: Doller Sues for Alleged Securities Fraud HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Cannabis Abatement Suit Gains Media Attention INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud J.P. MORGAN: Walton Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info LEAF HOME: Sisco Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages LONG BEACH CITY: Court Certifies Minimum Wage Class Suit LORETTO HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aderohunmu Alleges LYFT INC: Court Stays Employee Misclassification Class Action MALIBU BOATS: Blasingame Sues Over Defective Motor Boats MERCY HEALTH: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Action for $1.8 Mil. MOHO MEXICAN: Faces Carrizalez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime OLIVIA AVA: Mashkevich Sues Over Illegal Cryptocurrency Scheme OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses PHI Disclosure Class Action PRIORITY WRECKER: Kirby Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Freeman Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Bid for Protective Order OK'd RAMS FINANCIAL: Franchisees Sues Over Contract Terminations RTJ INVESTMENTS: Ozburn Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri SAINT JOSEPH'S: Cantave Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement SAKER ENTERPRISES: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties SALVATION ARMY: Tassinari Suit Seeks to Certify Classes SAN DIEGO, CA: January Flood Victims Sues Over City's Negligence SANJAY CHAKRABARTY: Edelman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. SAP MO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lemus Suit Claims SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Chevere Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SELENE FINANCE: Class Certification Discovery Due June 14 SHAHID INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Liz Claims SINGTEL OPTUS: Full Court Rejects Class Action Privilege Claims SKULLCANDY INC: Sorensen Suit Removed to C.D. California SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Whipple Seeks to Certify Savings Plan Class SOUTHERN COMPANY: Tobias Sues Over Engineers' Unpaid OT SPACE COAST: Denies Access to Financial Products, Leyva Claims SPEAKER SHOP: Liz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPOTIFY INC: Faces Class Action Over Car Thing Deactivation STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Winter Class Cert Bid TEN BRIDGES: Taie Appeals Rulings to 9th Cir. THOMAS VILSACK: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Suspended TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Massive Data Breach TICKETMASTER LLC: Getman Sues Over Alleged Data Breach TICKETMASTER LLC: Ryan and Garcia Sue Over Unprotected Private Info TOYOTA MOTOR: Barrientos Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicles TRIONFO SOLUTIONS: Killian Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data TRUBRIDGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rhine Suit Alleges UBER INC: Disabled Riders Sue Over Wheelchair Accommodation UNIO HEALTH CARE: Hanne Suit Removed to S.D. California UNITED PARCELS: Moyle Suit Removed to S.D. New York UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Franklin Cardiology Files Suit in D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Koulouras Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Moffitt Hospital Sues Over Unprotected Info USAA CASUALTY: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Certification VANGUARD CHESTER: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class VINFAST AUTO LTD: Qian Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation WEBHELP AMERICAS: Johnson Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations [*] Harvard Law Released 2023 Global Class Action Annual Report ********* 2112 HIGHWAY: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties ------------------------------------------------------ Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. 2112 HIGHWAY 35 ASSOCIATES LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06564 (D.N.J., May 30, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced. The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the 2010 ADA Standards. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within Dunkin Donuts, Ocean Nails Spa, and Suenie Beauty Salon, are inaccessible to The Plaintiff (and all mobility impaired persons), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities. 2112 HIGHWAY 35 ASSOCIATES LLC, owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Acueducto Comunidad Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Acueducto Comunidad De Buenos Aires, Inc., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining Ans Manufacturing Company): AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; 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; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTONS LP: THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 3:24-cv-01246 (D.P.R., May 31, 2024), is brought against the Defendants alleging theories of trespass, nuisance, negligence, wantonness, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, and strict liability for environmental and economic injuries, contamination and unlawful incursion onto the Plaintiff's land, surface and subsurface soil, sediment, natural resources, municipal and real property caused by releases of fluorinated Class B firefighting foams manufactured with synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or chemicals (collectively and hereafter referred to as "PFAS"). In this complaint, the term ("PFAS") refers to a family of synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not limited to: Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorohexanoic acid ("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS"). In this complaint, the term Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") refers to any fluorinated firefighting foams that contains PFOS and/or PFOA (including any of their salt, ionic or acid forms and their precursors or degradation products) manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants for civilian, military and training applications worldwide. PFOS and PFOA are synthetic fluorinated compounds that are particularly useful for controlling and extinguishing aviation, marine, fuel, and other Class B fires because fluorine atoms have extremely persistent and stable physio-chemical properties. PFOS and PFOA are soluble in water, not easily biodegradable, and persistent in the environment. Both are known to be harmful to human health. When AFFF containing PFOS or PFOA is released into the environment; both compounds, their precursors and degradation products, can migrate into soil and groundwater. It has been shown that the bioconcentration and bioaccumulation of perfluorinated acids is directly related to fluorination. AFFF is a specialized manufactured foam designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training exercises and live-fire responses. PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic, not easily biodegradable, persistent in the environment and pose a significant risk to animal and human health. 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, defendant 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. The Defendants failed to warn individuals, communities, municipalities, or states of the serious environmental, human, and animal toxicity concerns linked to the use and exposure to fluorinated AFFF foams. Because the Defendants knowingly placed defective and dangerously toxic fluorinated AFFF foams into the stream of commerce they are strictly liable to the Plaintiff for causing the release of toxic PFAS compounds into the Aqueduct and its surface and subsurface soil. The Defendants sold, manufactured, and distributed AFFF containing fluorinated surfactants touting the superior firefighting performance for decades and deliberately chose not to warn end users or purchasers of the potential environmental or human toxicity concerns linked to fluorinated compounds. Because the Defendants negligently caused the release of toxic PFAS compounds into the Aqueduct and its surface and subsurface soil they are all jointly and severally liable, says the complaint. Acueducto Comunidad de Buenos Aires, Inc. is a private aqueduct and water system in Caguas, Puerto Rico, and incorporated under Puerto Rican law. 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: 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 - and - Juan Saavedra-Castro, Esq. Wilma E. Reveron Collazo, Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 290 Ave. Jesus Y. Pinero, Suite 1201 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Email: jsaavedra@wmclaw.com wreveron@wmclaw.com 3M COMPANY: Sindicato De Bomberos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sindicato De Bomberos Unidos De Puerto Rico, Inc., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining Ans Manufacturing Company): AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; 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; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTONS LP: THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 3:24-cv-01248 (D.P.R., May 31, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief for personal injury to its members resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish 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, a 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 proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remain and persist over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and bodies of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body and presents significant health risks to humans. The Plaintiff's members presently are or were firefighters at the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Fire Department. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Fire Department stored and used Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS chemicals and/or their precursor chemicals in Firefighting Activities. During its members' career as firefighters, Plaintiff's members regularly used and were exposed to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS chemicals and/or their precursory chemicals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF and/or TOG products were used by Plaintiff's members in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff's members were unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions regarding the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's members consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff's members significant and devastating injury. As a direct result to the exposure to AFFF and TOG, Plaintiff's members were diagnosed with diseases linked to exposure to AFFF and TOG. The Plaintiff's members suffered, and continue to suffer, the effects of various illnesses, which were caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. 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 and/or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's Firefighting Activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. Sindicato de Bomberos Unidos de Puerto Rico, Inc. (hereinafter "SBU") is a labor organization duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 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: 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 - and - Juan Saavedra-Castro, Esq. Wilma E. Reveron Collazo, Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 290 Ave. Jesus Y. Pinero, Suite 1201 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Email: jsaavedra@wmclaw.com wreveron@wmclaw.com ABBOTSFORD, BC: Court Certifies Sumas Prairie Flood Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vikki Hopes, writing for Penticton Western News, reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has certified a class-action lawsuit against the City of Abbotsford for damages that occurred during the November 2021 flooding on Sumas Prairie. The decision was issued in Abbotsford by Justice Dev Dley, who said a class action would be the "preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues." The initial lawsuit was filed in December 2021 by residents Caroline Mostertman and Robert Gordon, who has since died, to recoup losses from the city after the Sumas Dike overflowed its banks during the atmospheric river. They claimed that the city "breached its duty of care" by failing to close the flood boxes at the Barrowtown pump station, knowing that a storm was coming, and by not having enough staff on hand at the station in the days before and during the flood. "Water from the Fraser River back-flooded into the outer Sumas Prairie and rose to the extent that it caused the Sumas Dike to breach, flooding the inner Sumas Prairie," Justice Dley wrote in a decision. Mostertman and Gordon sought to have the case turned into a class action, which required certification through the courts. A class action involves several individuals seeking justice for an alleged injury done to them by the same defendant. The city has responded in civil court documents that the disaster unfolded so quickly that "no notice could have given the plaintiffs time to take steps to avoid or mitigate their loss." "Although Abbotsford acknowledges that many residents of the city suffered substantial upheaval and property damage, it maintains that the flooding was caused by the Nooksack River (in Washington State)," Justice Dley wrote in a decision. The city opposed the application for certification of a class action, saying that anyone with an alleged claim should file individually. There are more than 1,400 properties in the Sumas Prairie area, Dley wrote. "Even if only a small fraction of those properties decided to pursue claims arising out of the flooding, this would result in a multitude of proceedings," he stated. " . . . The class proceeding provides for a single and consistent management of the issues that are common to the claimant class." Vancouver law firm Slater Vecchio LLP has been appointed to represent the plaintiffs. Lawyer Anthony Vecchio said the judge’s decision to proceed as a class action is a "significant step forward to obtaining access of justice by allowing the plaintiffs’ action to proceed to trial." He said those affected will be notified "in due course" regarding the next steps in the class action. [GN] ABBVIE INC: Reese Sues Over Unlawful Removal Bylaw -------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Reese, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. ABBVIE INC., Case No. 2024-0585- (Del. Chancery Cty., May 31, 2024), is brought to seeksdeclaratory relief invalidating the Removal Bylaw, an action by the Defendant that violates Delaware law. Delaware law reserves to stockholders—and, in limited circumstances, the Court--the right to remove members of a board of directors. It does not permit directors to remove other directors, as such authority would undermine stockholders' fundamental right to choose who represents them on a board. AbbVie's board of directors (the "Board") has subverted Delaware law by maintaining a provision in the Second Amended and Restated By-laws of AbbVie, Inc. (the "Bylaws") that requires individuals nominated by AbbVie's stockholders for election to the Board to tender irrevocable resignations that may be triggered by the incumbent members of the Board (the "Removal Bylaw"). No such requirement exists for Board nominated individuals. The Removal Bylaw purports to grant Board nominated directors the power to remove stockholder-nominated directors, which is not permitted. "When a bylaw's plain reading purports to grant directors rather than stockholders the right to remove directors, it conflicts with Section 141 and is invalid." Ironically, the Board backdoored this usurpation of stockholder prerogative through a mechanism akin to one authorized by the General Assembly to give stockholders a greater say in board composition. The legislative action was spurred by a 2003 campaign, driven by institutional investors, to advance stockholder proposals calling for the adoption of a majority vote standard in uncontested director elections. According to the Council of Institutional Investors, nine out of ten companies in the S&P 500 index now use a majority vote standard for uncontested director elections. The Removal Bylaw expressly violates two DGCL provisions. The first is Section 141(b), which delineates the sole circumstance in which an irrevocable resignation may be tendered--again, failure to receive a specified vote for reelection. The second is a provision which vests stockholders with the near--exclusive right to remove directors. The Removal Bylaw is also inconsistent with stockholders' statutory entitlement to elect directors of their choosing. The Plaintiff made a pre-suit demand upon the Board to bring the Removal Bylaw into compliance with Delaware law (the "Demand"). The Board rejected his Demand (the "Rejection"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been, a AbbVie stockholder since at least February 2011. AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0336 - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Phone: (475) 477-5031 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Phone: (212) 231-1500 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Phone: (888) 715-1740 - and - Alfred G. Yates, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Phone: (412) 391-5164 AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Weiss Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS & DERMATOLOGIC SURGEONS, P.A. The case is styled as Richard Weiss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS & DERMATOLOGIC SURGEONS, P.A., Case No. 2:24-cv-06603 (D.N.J., May 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Affiliated Dermatologists & Dermatologic Surgeons PA -- https://www.affiliateddermatologists.com/ -- is a Medical Group Practice located in Morristown, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com ALLIANCE REALTY: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties --------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. ALLIANCE REALTY ENTERPRISES LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06594 (D.N.J., May 31, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced. The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the 2010 ADA Standards. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within Dunkin Donuts, Ocean Nails Spa, and Suenie Beauty Salon, are inaccessible to The Plaintiff (and all mobility impaired persons), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities. ALLIANCE REALTY ENTERPRISES LLC owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com ALROSE ALLEGRIA: Colak Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Ali Colak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALROSE ALLEGRIA, LLC,, Case No. 2:24-cv-03900 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.allegriahotelny.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant's Website offers services online to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ANTHEM COMPANIES: Ordered to Produce Relevant Documents ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lazaar, et al. v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03075-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica Clarke entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to compel with respect to the documents the Defendants agreed to produce. The deadline for Defendants to produce such documents is June 10, 2024. With respect to the contracts, it appears that the parties are close to a resolution of this issue. The parties are directed to further confer about producing relevant portions of the three contracts, along with a proposed protective order. The parties are also directed to confer further regarding the depositions of the three opt-in Plaintiffs and a proposed discovery extension. The case management conference scheduled for June 12, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., will take via Microsoft Teams. Anthem is a health benefits company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjETiS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lennon B. Haas, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Telephone (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 E-mail: lhaas@seyfarth.com APPLE INC: Rodgers Suit Hits Smartphone Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN RODGERS, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06343 (D.N.J., May 22, 2024) is a class action against Defendant brought by the Plaintiff under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, for relief from Defendant's attempted and actual monopolization of the market for the sale of smartphones in the United States from at least as early as March 21, 2020. According to the complaint, Apple has abused and continues to abuse its monopoly through the overarching scheme revealed by the United States Department of Justice, with the purpose and the effect of charging and receiving artificially high prices and fees from consumers in the United States. Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower Smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the substantial injuries he and members of the Class have suffered by reason of Defendant's continuing violations of law. Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[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 ASCENSION HEALTH: Radley Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ----------------------------------------------------------- JILL RADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:24-cv-00748-RHH (E.D. Mo., May 29, 2024) arises from Defendant's inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. According to the complaint, Ascension failed to provide timely notice to Plaintiff and Class Members, depriving them of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm. When Ascension finally did notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the disclosure, Ascension offered no assurances that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Ascension has adequately enhanced its security practices or dedicated sufficient resources and staff to avoid a breach of its network in the future. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Ascension and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and injunctive relief. Ascension is a non-profit and Catholic health systems headquartered in St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011-2029 Telephone: (314) 541-0317 E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com ASPEN RT 9: Maurer Sues Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------ Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. ASPEN RT 9, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06562 (D.N.J., May 30, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced. The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the 2010 ADA Standards. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within Terrace Bagels & Cafe and Route 9 Farmers Market, are inaccessible to Mr. Maurer (and all mobility impaired persons), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities. ASPEN RT 9, LLC, owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com AT&T INC: Murphy Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Paul Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03054 (D. Minn., May 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: erittergordon@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com Khriebel@locklaw.com AUDATEX NORTH: May Be Responsible for Suit Settlement, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lurah Lowery, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that a District Court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit filed against Audatex claiming it undervalued total loss claims has been overturned. Mackenzie Zuern sued Ameriprise subsidiary IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. in a Washington state court in November 2019 on behalf of a proposed class. Audatex's Autosource valuation or AudaExplore software allegedly provided vehicle valuations with a "typical negotiation" adjustment of 6-7%. Ameriprise settled the suit in 2020 and, in July 2022, sued Audatex in a New York federal district court to recover the $2.5 million it paid to settle the case and in defense costs. The settlement was $1.75 million. Audatex sought dismissal contending that its vendor agreement with Ameriprise didn't require it to pay the settlement and defense costs. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit states in its May 23 order that Ameriprise sufficiently proved vehicles were undervalued as a result of the company's use of Audatex's services. "To survive a motion to dismiss, Ameriprise was required to plead facts sufficient to establish a plausible claim that Audatex's services or Ameriprise's use thereof had ‘some causal relationship' with the Zuern class claims," the order states. "In its complaint, Ameriprise alleged that Audatex provided it with a vehicle valuation tool and that Ameriprise used the tool to calculate payments on its customers' total-loss insurance claims. "According to Ameriprise, that tool generated total cash values that had been reduced by a ‘typical negotiation adjustment,' which reflected the assumption that vehicle buyers typically negotiate a lower price than the price advertised by a dealer." Ameriprise also argued that the "typical negotiation adjustments violated Washington state law, and "that law, it alleged requires insurance companies calculating the value of a total-loss vehicle to make 'only appropriate deductions or additions for options, mileage, or condition when determining comparability,'" the order states. "While Audatex's valuation tool may not have been the proximate cause of the Zuern claims, it need not have been: under New York law the phrase 'arising out of' does not require proximate cause," the judges wrote. "We therefore conclude that the district court erred in finding that the Zuern claims did not ‘arise out of' Audatex's valuation tool or Ameriprise's use thereof." The July 2022 complaint filed by Ameriprise contends Audatex breached its contract by refusing to indemnify and reimburse IDS for money it and its insurer, ACIC, paid to defend and settle the class action lawsuit. "The contract obligated Audatex to defend, indemnify, and hold IDS harmless for any lawsuit resulting from or arising out of Audatex's systems or services," the suit states. "ACIC and IDS were required to spend over $2 million dollars to defend and settle claims that Audatex's software and systems unfairly and unlawfully calculated vehicle damage totals in violation of Washington state law. Audatex has refused to honor its contract and refuses to reimburse the money ACIC and IDS spent defending and settling claims that resulted from and arose out of IDS's use of Audatex's system, services, and content. All conditions precedent have been met and this dispute is ripe for adjudication." The Second Circuit order didn't rule on whether Audatex owes Ameriprise those costs. [GN] B.D. TRANSPORT: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Lopez, Jr., Rafael Flores, Hector Ivan Gabriel Gonzalez, Jose Arturo Lua Vazquez, Ramon Silvestre Lua Vazauez, Valeria De Los Milagros Ramos Martinez, Valerie Nicole Lopez, Jorge Hernandez, Javier Lopez Reyes, Johnny Cabrera, Juan Jorge Humberto Hernandez Sanchez, Miguel Vazquez, as individuals and all others similarly situated v. B.D. Transport, Inc., A California Corporation; BRIAN DANAHER, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV13610 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 31, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements; unfair competition; and for violation of Private Attorney General's Act of 2004. Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per week, and both during the regular work week and periodic weekends. The Plaintiffs paystubs did not include the additional, unpaid hours per week that they worked, therefore they were inaccurate. The Plaintiffs were not permitted to take their statutory 10-minute rest breaks for every four hours worked, or majority portion thereof, nor were the Plaintiffs even told they had the right to do so. Throughout their employment, the Plaintiffs were not permitted to take their statutory 30-minute uninterrupted meal periods for days on which Plaintiffs worked at least 5 hours, which was each day they worked. The Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium for hours worked beyond 8 in a day or beyond 40 in a week, and received no wages at all of the additional hours per week that they worked, the entirety of which qualified as overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. BD TRANSPORT, INC. legally conducts business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig L. Chisvin, Esq. CLC LAW GROUP, APC 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 365-2200 Facsimile: (310) 820-8485 Email: craig@clclawgroup.com BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR VILLATORO ALDANA, and JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a scheduling order as to class certification briefing as follows: Event Original Date New Date Motion for class certification VACATED Oct. 15, 2024 and service of supporting expert reports Opposition to class certification VACATED Jan. 27, 2025 and service of supporting expert reports Reply in support of class VACATED March 20, 2025 certification motion and service of rebuttal expert reports Hearing on motion for class VACATED To be set by the Certification Court The Defendant is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dh1VsT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Glenn E. Chappell, Esq. Shana Khader, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. Cort Carlson, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com gchappell@tzlegal.com skhader@tzlegal.com apersinger@tzlegal.com wgriffith@tzlegal.com ccarlson@tzlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth L. Mckeen, Esq. Ashley M. Pavel, Esq. William K. Pao, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 E-mail: emckeen@omm.com apavel@omm.com wpao@omm.com BANQUE DU LIBAN: Najjar Sues Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ Hannan Adely of NorthJersey.com reports that when Karim Najjar, a New Jersey pediatrician, wanted to set aside savings for retirement, he looked to his native Lebanon. Emerging from a civil war, the Middle Eastern country was seeing economic growth and had begun pegging its currency to the U.S. dollar in 1997. Around that time, Najjar opened an account in Byblos Bank, which offered higher interest rates than U.S. banks. In 2019, Najjar learned -- with the rest of the world -- about a stunning and massive banking scheme fueled by government corruption, fraud and mismanagement that crashed the nation's economy. To this day, he said, he has been prevented from withdrawing savings or transferring accounts out of the country. "It infuriated us," said Najjar, 71, of Moorestown. "We could not do anything about it. It is money we collected, and we wanted for our retirement." Najjar is among many Lebanese Americans who were exploited by what many economists have called a Ponzi scheme, a system in which new money is borrowed from new investors to pay back existing ones. Lured by high interest rates, they put money in Lebanese banks and later were denied access to their own accounts. Najjar is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 16 against banks and auditors. The lawsuit alleges that they conspired to defraud American citizens, in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or RICO. "Lives were destroyed by the Lebanese banks' actions," said Charles LaDuca, Chairman of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, one of the firms that filed the lawsuit, in a statement. "We intend to advocate aggressively for our clients, and filing this first-of-its kind case is just the first step toward justice." Promises they could not keep According to the complaint, Lebanese banks systematically defrauded thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, promising interest rates they could not sustain and misleading them about their financial health. When people wanted to close accounts, banks would entice them to stay with even higher rates. Banks also convinced depositors to convert their U.S. dollars to lira, the Lebanese currency, using artificial conversion rates, according to lawyers who called it a "bait and switch." The lira has lost 98% its value since the economy began unravelling in 2019, Reuters reported. Najjar asked about withdrawing money between 2016 and 2019, and each time, the bank manager offered to raise rates if he stayed put. He was offered 10 to 12% at a time when U.S. returns were 3%. Najjar has accounts -- two with savings in U.S. dollars and one for interest in lira -- valued at more $1 million. After the crash of 2019, anyone with a bank account in Lebanon, including the nation's own citizens, were unable to access accounts. Banks eventually began allowing clients to withdraw up to $400 a month paid in local currency, plus the equivalent amount in local currency. The withdrawals needed to be made in person in Lebanon. The lawsuit was filed by Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, Cecchi Brody & Agnello, Lockridge Grindal & Nauen, and Barrett Law against Banque du Liban, Byblos Bank, S.A.L., Ernst and Young Accounts, and others. Aggressive marketing About 686,000 people of Lebanese ancestry live in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with a large community located in New Jersey. In Lebanese American hubs, word spread about lucrative interest rates. Bankers also marketed to U.S. citizens using tools like WhatsApp call and messaging, email, and phone conversations to attract depositors, according to the lawsuit. Samar Issa, an assistant professor of Business Administration at St. Peter's University Frank J. Guarini School of Business in Jersey City, said marketing was aggressive as banks desperately sought infusions of foreign currency. Many invested, but she warned family and friends to stay away. "As an economist, I could say, no, this doesn't make sense. There's no government that can give this," said Issa, who has researched and written about the Lebanese financial crisis. For accounts converted from dollars to lira, banks were offering as high as 17% on regular accounts and 21% on government bonds, Issa said. Government corruption fueled the crisis, she added. Banks were paying high interest to clients, then were compelled to provide funds to the government to service debt at low rates of interest, she explained. It was unsustainable. As signs of financial trouble become clear, bank employees, shareholders and their relatives moved money to offshore accounts, further deepening the crisis. When banks no longer had enough dollars to pay back clients, they shut down and the government defaulted on debt. Lebanon is still reeling from the financial crisis today. Issa urged people not to "blindly trust financial advisers and bankers" and not to trust promises that seem too good to be true. From New Jersey, Najjar watched as Lebanon's financial system neared collapse, worrying about his savings. What happened to him and others is not fair, he said. Then he got a call about joining the class action lawsuit. "I said, why not? I have nothing to lose." [GN] BARILLA AMERICA: Court Certifies False Ads Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- National Law Journal reports that a California federal judge has certified a class action alleging that Barilla falsely labels its pasta as being made in Italy. We previously blogged on this case when Barilla's motion to dismiss was denied because the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the phrase "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta" is misleading despite Barilla arguing that the phrase represents the "Company's Italian roots." The plaintiffs allege that the claim on the front panel of Barilla's packaging "is misleading to reasonable consumers and tricks them into thinking the products are made in Italy or with ingredients sourced from the country." According to the plaintiffs, this claim is reinforced through graphics using the Italian flag's colors. However, the products are not made in Italy or using ingredients sourced from Italy. Barilla argued that the class was not properly defined and the product labels have been revised since filing, so the class should not be certified. According to the judge, though, certification is proper because, among other things, the plaintiffs adequately alleged the defendants suffered common harm based on consumer deception. The consumers in the class relied on the challenged claim and understood it to mean the products were authentic Italian pastas that they would not have purchased if they knew the products were not made in Italy. In addition, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that Barilla marketed its products as "authentically Italian" understanding that an Italian connection is a material consideration to potential purchasers. [GN] BAY AREA HEART: Fischer Sues Over Data Security Breach, Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------------- Norman Fischer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Area Heart Center and Bowden Barlow Law, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 24-002345-CI (Fla. Cir., 16th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., May 29, 2024) arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data security breach on Defendant Bowden Barlow Law's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive patient personal information and medical data. On or about December 27, 2023, Defendant Bowden Barlow Law became aware that an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant Bowden Barlow Law's computer systems. However, Defendants did not begin notifying victims until late February 2024 -- nearly three months after they discovered the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Based in St. Petersburg, FL, Bay Area Heart Center, P.A. provides cardiac care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com BBST LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW GOMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BBST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02369 (E.D. Pa., May 31, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.philadelphiarunner.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. BBST, LLC is an independent and locally owned specialty running company. [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 Email: DGlanzberg@aol.com robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com BELK INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Danso Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARITY DANSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BELK, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04184 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of discriminating against blind or visually-impaired people by failing to provide full and equal access to its website. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who relies on screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 7, 2024, to access Defendant's website, www.belk.com, in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, specifically, a perfume. Plaintiff encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff brings claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York Human Rights Law and seeks injunction requiring Defendant to take the necessary steps to make its website fully compliant with the ADA. Belk, Inc. is an American department store chain based in Charlotte, NC. [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 BIC USA: Faces Class Action Over Violations of Maine's PFAS Law --------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that In what appears to be a new pathway for PFAS litigation, California plaintiffs recently filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of BIC razors stemming from disclosures the company made under Maine's PFAS law, which were subsequently publicized by a nonprofit group following a freedom of information request. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, alleges that the manufacturer of the popular BIC razor brand disclosed its intentional use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS, to the State of Maine pursuant to a highly scrutinized state law requiring such disclosure, but failed to disclose its use of PFAS to customers. Preceding the lawsuit, a public advocacy group, Defend Our Health, obtained records from the state pursuant to a freedom of information request. Ten days after Defend Our Health publicized the names and information of several companies that made disclosures to the State of Maine, out-of-state plaintiffs, who are California residents, filed a class action in federal court stating they would not have bought the razors had they known they were exposing themselves to "toxic chemicals that pose undue health risks, even at low levels." The Maine law in question, which was recently amended, bans intentionally added PFAS in many products sold within the state. The law bans different categories of products in phases over time, with the ban on the last group of products becoming effective in 2040. Until passage of the amendments in mid-April 2024, companies were obligated to report to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection any products that included intentionally added PFAS. That reporting requirement has now been amended to require disclosure only of certain products for which the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has determined PFAS use in the products is currently unavoidable. Looking ahead, the lawsuit is likely to prompt similar litigation against other companies that have disclosed PFAS under the Maine law or comparable state regulations. Additionally, the theory advanced could lead to litigation stemming from disclosure requirements in other states that require disclosure of substances other than PFAS, such as fragrances and allergens. [GN] BKS/ML AMERICAN: Parties Must File Status Report by August 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alma Lancaster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BKS/ML American Textile Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01280-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before Aug. 30, 2024. -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by June 30, 2024. -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before April 15, 2025. -- No later than January 15, 2025, plaintiff(s) shall identify any expert(s) and, unless waived, shall serve on the other parties the expert's written report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). -- No later than March 3, 2025, defendant(s) shall identify any expert(s) and, unless waived, shall serve on the other parties the expert's written report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VzkFdI at no extra charge.[CC] BOEM INC: Faces Conner Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY CONNER, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BOEM, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00521-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C., May 31, 2024) seeks injunction and damages for Defendant's alleged failure to provide full and equal website access to blind or visually-impaired customers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. This complaint arises from Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.Shopboem.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website allegedly contains several access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers, including Plaintiff, to use the website, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This action also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Based in Charlotte, NC, Boem, Inc. is a local boho chic boutique offering women's clothing, accessories, and shoes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC NC State Bar No. 24250 2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200 Matthews, NC 28105 Telephone: (704) 814-0729 Facsimile: (704) 814-0730 E-mail: srg@gohillaw.com - and - 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 BOW PLUMBING: Court Grants Emergency Motion for Curative Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Zachary J. McCormack of Duane Morris report that on May 23, 2024, in Braswell, et al. v. Bow Plumbing Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-00025, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92478 (M.D. Ala. May 23, 2024), Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Curative Action to the extent that: (1) the Court struck 319 requests for exclusion (or "opt-outs") submitted by individuals seeking to opt-out of a class-wide settlement; (2) the Court re-opened the opt-out and objection period for these 319 class members; and (3) the Court authorized issuance of a second curative notice and request for exclusion form to the 319 class members. Judge Marks tossed out the 319 "opt-outs" and partially reopened the objection period in an attempt to protect the due process rights of the affected class members. The Court took this action because it found that outside attorneys repeatedly misled the class members regarding the pending $8.025 million settlement, which lead to the numerous exclusion requests. The Court found that two attorneys, who represent the same plaintiffs in separate but related class actions against the same defendant, Bow Plumbing Group, Inc., repeatedly contacted eligible class members to urge them to opt out of the settlement. The Court's order not only provides guidance regarding the due process rights of class members, but also demonstrates the importance of effective and accurate attorney-client communications in the context of Rule 23. Case Background Bow Plumbing Group, Inc. produces drainage and pressure plumbing products in all the major plastic materials, including PEX tubing. On January 13, 2021, plaintiffs filed a class action alleging defects in Bow's PEX tubing, which was installed in the homes of plaintiffs and the class members. The parties eventually settled the case on a class-wide basis, and on February 28, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed $8.025 million settlement, provisionally certified the settlement class, and directed notice to the settlement class. Id. Shortly after, in March 2024, Attorneys Jay Aughtman and Kenneth Mendelsohn sent emails to a "blind-copied" list of their clients, which contained misleading or inaccurate statements regarding the proposed class action settlement and associated proceedings in this case. Id. Specifically, the emails contained misleading deadlines, misinformation regarding the terms of the settlement, an inaccurate statement that a California-based administrator, who was paid for from the settlement, would determine class members' individual eligibility to receive any funds, and an incorrect suggestion that it could be unethical for plaintiffs' counsel to communicate with presumptive class members. In response, on April 4, 2024, the Court determined that these emails "materially interfere[ed] with the Court's order to effectuate a notice plan which fairly, accurately, and reasonably informs the settlement class members of the proposed settlement terms and associated procedures to resolve their claims." Id. The Court further pointed out that this misinformation put final resolution of the case in jeopardy and risked class members to opt out without the benefit of accurate and complete information. Id. On April 9, 2024 -- within days of the Court's order -- the same attorneys sent another email to their clients stating: "Bow's defense counsel and the class action attorneys are making rigorous efforts to delay your individual claims that we continue to pursue for you." Id. The Court found the April 9, 2024 email falsely portrayed its efforts to rectify Attorneys Aughtman and Mendelsohn's misleading communications as unnecessarily delaying their clients' individual claims. Id. Finally, on May 7, 2024, the attorneys sent another email suggesting that class members should not speak with class counsel, despite the Court's April 4 O\order expressly observing that such communications are permissible. Presumably as a result of the attorneys' misleading communication, the parties received, through the Court-appointed settlement administrator, a total of 319 requests for exclusion. Id. The Court's Decision The Court held that the attorneys undermined the integrity of the class settlement process by providing incomplete, misleading, and coercive information to potential class members. Based on these communications, as well as the fact that many of the requests for exclusion were signed before the Court's curative notice or before the Court-approved notice of the settlement was even issued, the Court was concerned that a significant percentage of these requests for exclusion were caused, in whole or in part, by the inaccurate or incomplete information disseminated by the attorneys. Id. Therefore, to safeguard the integrity of Rule 23, the class members' due process rights, and the administration of justice, the Court ordered corrective measures to ascertain whether the 319 "opt-outs" are aware of the terms of the settlement, have been adequately informed, and have been provided a sufficient, uncoerced opportunity to decide whether they wish to remain in the class. Rule 23 "requires that class members be given information reasonably necessary for them to make a decision." The Court reasoned that, under Rule 23(c)(2)(B) it has a responsibility to give class members "the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances." Id. The Court reasoned that, since it was over two months since the affected class members first learned about the settlement, a shortened opt-out period is both practical and reasonable. Id. Accordingly, the settlement administrator was given seven days to send out the curative letter and renewed request for exclusion forms to the 319 presumptive class members, and they were given 29 days to respond, with a new deadline of June 21. Implications Of The Decision This order serves as a cautionary reminder of the potential repercussions for providing incomplete or inaccurate information to clients. Further, it depicts the consequences of subverting a class action settlement deal. Rule 23 provides courts with a responsibility to ensure class members have information necessary to decide whether to opt-out of litigation. Corporate counsel should take note of the Court's interpretation of Rule 23 to be more equipped to effectively handle class action litigation, and continue to monitor this space for future developments. [GN] BRHPAN II-GEORGIA: Brazier Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brhpan II-Georgia, LLC. The case is styled as Nicholas Brazier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BRHPAN II-GEORGIA LLC doing business as: Panera Bread, Case No. 3:24-cv-00327-GNS (W.D. Ky., May 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Panera Bread -- https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/home.html -- is an American chain store of bakery-café fast food restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 CANADA: Court Certifies Suit Over Discrimination of CAF Members --------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the Federal Court has certified a class action against the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) concerning the alleged systemic negligence and discrimination faced by CAF members with mental health disorders (MHDs). The decision permitted the class action to proceed under claims of systemic negligence and breach of s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The action was initiated by Dan Thomas, who requested certification of a class proceeding and appointment as representative plaintiff under Rule 334.16 of the Federal Courts Rules. The proposed class includes current and former CAF members who experienced worsened symptoms of their mental health disorders due to stigmatization by the CAF. Thomas sought to represent those who faced Mental Illness Stigmatization, defined as pejorative attitudes and discriminatory treatment towards CAF members with MHDs. He claims that the CAF's policies, practices, and internal culture perpetuate this stigmatization, causing significant harm to affected members. The claim alleged systemic negligence and breaches of statutory and fiduciary duties, sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, and related provisions under Quebec law. The Crown, representing the CAF, opposed certification, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that internal CAF mechanisms provided adequate remedies. The Crown also contended that Thomas failed to establish a factual basis for four of the five certification test elements under Rule 334.16. The Federal Court reviewed the Crown's arguments, including the availability of internal dispute resolution schemes and compensation through Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). However, the court found these mechanisms inadequate for addressing the alleged systemic issues. The court noted that internal processes often suffer from delays, lack of impartiality, and limited applicability to former CAF members. The court admitted evidence from several public reports, highlighting systemic flaws in the CAF's handling of mental health issues and supported the claim that internal mechanisms were insufficient. The court emphasized that residual jurisdiction allows intervention where legislative processes fail to provide effective redress. The court rejected the Crown's attempt to withdraw its admission that the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. It noted the Crown's procedural error in trying to change its position without formal leave and upheld the original admission based on the adequacy of the pleadings. The court found that Thomas's pleadings sufficiently disclosed material facts supporting claims of systemic negligence and breach of s. 15(1) of the Charter. The claims highlighted how CAF's culture and policies failed to protect members with MHDs from discrimination, harassment, and abuse. The court agreed that the systemic nature of the allegations warranted a class proceeding to address common issues collectively. The court determined that the class action was the preferable procedure, promoting judicial economy and access to justice. The court noted that individual claims would not efficiently address the systemic issues. Furthermore, the court found that Thomas an appropriate representative plaintiff. Ultimately, the court certified the class action against the CAF for systemic negligence and breach of s. 15(1) of the Charter. [GN] CANADA: Indigenous People Can Apply Claims in Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Clutchey, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that Indigenous people who as children suffered abuse while housed under the former Indian Boarding Homes Program can apply for up to $200,000 in compensation as part of a class-action settlement. The Indian Homes Program class action lawsuit was approved in December by Canada's federal court, which deemed "it fair, reasonable and in the best interests of class members." Compensation claims can start being submitted at the end of August. Beginning in the 1950s, Indigenous children under the Homes Program were placed in households that were usually non-Indigenous so they could attend school. The program operated until the early 1990s. Anishinabek Nation highlighted the class action settlement last week in a Facebook post. Under the settlement, applicants who are deemed to be Category 1 class members are to receive $10,000, according to an online backgrounder about the settlement on the class action's website. "This is a single payment to anyone who was placed by Canada in the Indian Boarding Homes Program," the backgrounder says. Those deemed to be Category 2 class members could receive between $10,000-$200,000, depending "on the specific harms suffered, such as physical, emotional, or sexual abuse," the backgrounder says. "There is no limit for the amount of applicants," a claims administrator said on Thursday in an email. In addition to compensation paid to class members, the federal government is to provide $50 million for a foundation "that promotes healing and transparency, by formally recognizing the harm caused by the Indian Boarding Homes Program," the backgrounder said. Applications for compensation can begin to be submitted on Aug. 21. Those who wish to opt out of the class action and start an independent legal proceeding against the federal government must indicate their intention by July 22. More information, including how to submit a claim, is available on the class action's website at boardinghomesclassaction.com. The claims administrator can be reached at 1-888-499-1144. [GN] CANDLEWOOD ASSOCIATES: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties --------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. CANDLEWOOD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06545-GC-JBD (D.N.J., May 30, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced. The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the 2010 ADA Standards. The Property fails to provide a continuous accessible route throughout the shopping center. The exterior accessible route which connects the parking to the tenant spaces and throughout the shopping center from tenant space to tenant space is impeded by excessive cross-sloping and abrupt changes in level. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within Seasons Coal Fired Bistro and Ego Salon Spa, are inaccessible to Mr. Maurer (and all mobility impaired persons), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities. CANDLEWOOD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com CAPITAL FITNESS: Mercado Sues Over Biometric Data Collectiion ------------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Mercado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Fitness, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2024LA000646 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., May 29, 2024) seeks statutory and actual damages for Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Plaintiff Mercado worked as a physical trainer at the Capital Fitness facility in Addison, IL from August 2023 through December 2023 and had his biometric information processed via a fingerprint scan as part of the time clock procedure for timekeeping and payroll purposes. However, Capital Fitness failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's fingerprints following each time punch or at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment and instead retained Plaintiff's biometric information, says the suit. Capital Fitness is an Illinois corporation which operates health clubs, spas, and other physical fitness facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com CARDINAL GROUP: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties -------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. CARDINAL GROUP, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-06560 (D.N.J., May 30, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced. The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the 2010 ADA Standards. The Plaintiff could not access payment counters nor work surfaces throughout the Property as they are mounted beyond his reach. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within Il Nido, Empire Szechuan, DaVinci Beauty and Wellness, and Salon Seraphim, are inaccessible to Mr. Maurer (and all mobility impaired persons), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities. CARDINAL GROUP, LLC owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com CENCORA INC: Faces Bradford Suit Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------------ LATARSHA BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02344 (E.D. Pa., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the complaint, the Defendants are healthcare companies that partner with pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, and healthcare providers to facilitate access to therapies through drug distribution, patient support services, business analytics and technology, and other services. Plaintiff's and Class members' PII and PHI--which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect it against disclosure--was compromised and stolen due to a data breach experienced by Defendants. Allegedly, the data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols required to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' private information from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. Due to the data breach, Plaintiff's and Class members' identities are now at risk, forcing them to incur out of pocket costs for purchasing identity theft protection services. Through this class action lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to remedy the harms caused by Defendants' alleged negligent conduct, bringing claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, says the suit. Cencora, Inc. is a healthcare company based in Conshohocken, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 CENCORA INC: Gerber Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CENCORA, INC. The case is styled as Laurie Gerber, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC., LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02303-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 30, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade Commission Act. Cencora, Inc. -- https://www.cencora.com/ -- formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, is an American drug wholesale company and a contract research organization that was formed by the merger of Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in 2001.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com CENCORA INC: McQuillen and Stow Sue Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ PEYTON MCQUILLEN and CYNTHIA STOW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENCORA, INC. f/k/a AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02271 (E.D. Pa., May 29, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard certain personally identifiable information and protected health information, which they held in their possession. According to the complaint, the Defendants claim to have immediately investigated the Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed Defendants' systems on February 21, 2024, and had access to files that included the following: full names, addresses, dates of birth, health diagnoses, medications, and prescriptions. However, Defendants did not send notice of the Data Breach until on or around May 17, 2024, to Plaintiff Stow, and May 20, 2024, to Plaintiff McQuillen. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' personal and private health information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Headquartered in Conshohocken, PA, Cencora offers drug distribution, patient support and services, business analytics and technology, and other services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ethen Ostroff, Esq. ETHEN OSTROFF LAW 21 East 5th Ave, STE 102 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: 215-767-9477 E-mail: eo@ethenostrofflaw.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Alexander G. Kykta, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com leigh@ellzeylaw.com alex@ellzeylaw.com - and - Tom Kherkher, Esq. ATTORNEY TOM & ASSOCIATES 5909 West Loop South Suite 525 Houston, TX 77401 Telephone: (855) 866-9467 E-mail: tom@attorneytom.com CENCORA INC: Soward Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cencora, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Soward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cencora, Inc., The Lash Group, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02375 (E.D. Pa., June 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract. Cencora, Inc. -- https://www.cencora.com/ -- formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, is an American drug wholesale company and a contract research organization that was formed by the merger of Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in 2001.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 553-7982 Email: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com CHARTSWAP LLC: Piskothy Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jenna Piskothy, Darryl Cross, and Lauren Segedin and others similarly situated v. CHARTSWAP, LLC, WEST FLORIDA – MHT, doing business as Memorial Hospital of Tampa and/or as HCA Florida South Tampa Hospital, LARGO MEDICAL CENTER, INC., doing business as HCA Florida Largo Hospital, and OHI WEST, INC., doing business as Bayfront Health St. Petersburg, Case No. 24-CA-003142 was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01318. The Complaint alleges that "ChartSwap is, and at all material times, has been in the business of retrieving, duplicating, and delivering copies of patient records as a third-party vendor on behalf of various licensed facilities throughout the State of Florida." Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class members, seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Walter J. Tache, Esq. TACHE, BRONIS AND DESCALZO, P.A. 150 S.E. 2 Avenue, Suite 600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 537-9565 Facsimile: (305) 537-9567 Email: wtache@tachebronis.com service@tachebronis.com CHAUPAI LLC: Fernandez Files Suit Over Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHAUPAI, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04175 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of discriminating against blind or visually-impaired people by failing to provide full and equal access to its website. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Consumers such as Plaintiff may purchase Defendant's products and access other brand-related content and services at the website, www.madeinearthus.com, owned and operated by Defendant. Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 12, 2024, to access Defendant's website but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Defendant allegedly failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking 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. Headquartered in California, Chaupai LLC is engaged in the jewelry business, offering handmade jewelry that features natural gemstones. [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 CIGARETTE STORE: 46 East 65th Street Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as 46 East 65th Street LLC, and all others similarly situated v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver For Republic First Bank d/b/a Republic Bank, Partner Assessment Corp. d/b/a Partner Engineering & Science, Inc., and AB Plus R Construction Inc. d/b/a AB+R, Case No. 654063/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County Of New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04151. On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the State Court Action. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that that Republic wrongly approved loan disbursements to plaintiff, and in reliance upon Republic's approvals, plaintiff paid its contractor for work the contractor allegedly did not perform or failed properly to perform. Plaintiff frames these allegations as claims of breach of contract and negligence.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicholas Pasalides, Esq. Jonathan W. Hugg, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC 10 Bank Street, Ste 700 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 286-2803 Email: npasalides@eckertseamans.com jhugg@eckertseamans.com CIGARETTE STORE: Smith Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Angela Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CIGARETTE STORE, LLC, SMOKER FRIENDLY, ALLIANCE HEMP COMPANY LLC, MYSTIC LABS, GLOBAL WIDGET, SAVAGE ENTERPRISES, SAVAGE ELIQUIDS, HERBAL PHARM CORP, DANK-LITE, PACKAGE BROS INC, DELTA BANG, DELTA BANG PRODUCTS, BIOMINERALES PHARMA LLC, HEMPFIRE FARMS, PHARMA CBD, RIGHTFUL VENTURES, INC, PHARMLAS SD, VERDE LABS, ACCURATE TEST LABS, JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 35CV-24-266 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on May 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00469-BSM. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons "within the appropriate statute of limitations until the date of certification" "who bought one or more D8 vape pen Products or concentrate Products manufactured by the Defendants," "persons who bought one or more D8 vape pens manufactured by Defendants and sold or delivered in or to the State of Arkansas," and persons who "engaged in an illegal transaction unknowingly."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Abtin Mehdiz.adegan, Esq. Todd Wooten, Esq. HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. 200 River Market Avenue, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.214.3499 Fax: 501.604.5566 Email: Abtin@HallBoothSmith.com TWooten@HallBoothSmith.com CLARITY SERVICES: Mee Sues Over Unlawful Lending Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- JASON MEE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CLARITY SERVICES, INC., ISHWAASWI, LLC, MONEYLION, LLC, and MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00542 (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and asserts claims for unjust enrichment in connection with the unlawful lending practices. On or around December 1, 2019, Mr. Mee obtained a loan of, on information and belief, $500 from Radiant Cash, at an annual interest rate exceeding 500%. The loan far exceeded the maximum lawful interest rate in Florida and is thus an unlawful debt as defined under the CRCPA. Likewise, the Loan charged interest in excess of 36%, and thus meets the definition of an unlawful debt under RICO. Accordingly, the Defendants violated Section 1962(d) of RICO by conspiring with each other, and other persons, to issue and collect unlawful debts through Radiant Cash, says the suit. Based in Costa Mesa, CA, Clarity Services, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency that collects and provides information on payday loans, installment loans, auto loans (and leasing), check cashing services, rent-to-own transactions, telecommunication account openings, and financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. Christian E. Cok, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P. A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. A Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 321-2348 (813) 567-1230 (ext. 307) Facsimile: (855) 500-0705 E-mail: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com CCok@SeraphLegal.com COLUMBUS FAMILY: Settlement Deal in Morrison Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY MORRISON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. COLUMBUS FAMILY HEALTH CARE LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03460-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order: -- denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion for approval of FLSA Settlement Agreement, and -- directing the parties to file a revised Joint Motion for approval or a status report within 30 days of the date of this Opinion and Order. The revised Joint Motion must include the absent information discussed in this Opinion and Order. This case remains open. After careful review of the papers, the Court needs additional information to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. The proposed gross settlement amount is $29,287.19. The Settlement Agreement provides individual settlement payments to Plaintiffs as follows: Mary Morrison, $3,858.11; Tammy Patterson, $709.85; Osnat Elbasel, $24.00; Marsha Pickelsimer, $2,003.87; and Alisha Pickelsimer, $1,645.60. The parties failed to supply such percentages, or unpaid overtime hours estimates, hourly rates, or any other similar information to help the Court discern the reasonableness of the "Payment Total" chart on page 6 of the Joint Motion. Without more, Court cannot determine the reasonableness of the proposed individual settlement payments The Plaintiffs' counsel submitted their billing records attached to their declarations. They focus the Court' s attention on the fact that while they have "a total of $22,849.50 in fees under the lodestar approach, the Plaintiffs' Counsel [have] agreed to accept the lesser amount of $18,500.00 to achieve a resolution of this action." Despite this precautionary cut, the proposed attorney's fees remain high. And the high fees request is particularly troublesome where the Court has no information about the percentage of potential recovery the proposed individual settlement payments constitute. The reasonableness of the proposed attorney's fees award depends on context that the Court is, at current, blind to. The Court needs additional information to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of this proposed settlement. The Plaintiff Mary Morrison brought this action in September 2022, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to properly pay its Home Health Aides ("HHA")—including Plaintiff— overtime compensation for time the HHAs spent traveling between clients. On Dec. 19, 2023, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement. Columbus provides home healthcare services throughout Columbus, Ohio and the surrounding areas. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sVJHBh at no extra charge.[CC] COMMUNITY FIRST CREDIT: Thomson Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community First Credit Union. The case is styled as Matthew Thomson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Community First Credit Union, Case No. 1:24-cv-00684 (E.D. Wis., May 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Community First Bank -- https://communityfirst.com.au/ -- offers great rates on home loans, banking accounts, personal loans, insurance products, award winning low interest rate credit cards and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW-Ste 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Wimberly Sues Over Contaminated Canned Goods ------------------------------------------------------------ MILDRED WIMBERLY, individually on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04236 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2024) arises from the Defendant's negligent failure to ensure the quality and safety of its canned meat and poultry products leading to the recall of Defendant's meat and poultry products due to bacterial contamination concerns. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Recalled Products are heavily marketed as being held to a strict standard of ingredients; however, its canned goods are not safe. On January 31, 2023, Defendant recalled approximately 2,581,816 pounds of canned meat and poultry products due to a packaging defect that may cause the products to become contaminated without showing any outward signs of contamination. Plaintiff Wimberly consumed Armour Vienna Sausages with establishment number "P4247" on the product cans and became ill. The Products Plaintiff consumed are within Defendant's recall, says the suit. Conagra Brands, Inc. manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, and distributes canned goods across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy T. Willey, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: roy@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com DENTEGRA INSURANCE: Faces Ehli Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY EHLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DENTEGRA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00769 (W.D. Wash., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of data security failures. The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's alleged failures to safeguard the confidential protected health information and personally identifying information of its plan members, including Plaintiff and Class members, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of such private information in a cyberattack in May 2023. The Plaintiff claims that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to ensure that its third-party vendor, MOVEit, implemented industry standards for data security and properly trained employees on cybersecurity protocols. Additionally, Defendant allegedly failed to promptly notify and warn data breach victims of the unauthorized disclosure of their confidential information, preventing them from taking necessary steps to protect themselves from injury and harm. The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Washington Data Breach Disclosure Law, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and declaratory judgment. Dentegra Insurance Company is a dental insurance provider headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter Smith, Esq. SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC 3905 Martin Way E., Suite F Olympia, WA 98506 Telephone: (360) 915-6952 E-mail: walter@smithdietrich.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC 908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com DESIGNS BY MILLO: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARITY DANSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DESIGNS BY MILLO, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04182 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of denying full and equal website access to blind or visually-impaired customers, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its alleged failure to design construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.millo.com, to be fully accessible and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 7, 2024, to access Defendant's website to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered access barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take all the steps necessary so that its website becomes fully compliant with the ADA requirements and remains readily accessible and usable by blind individuals. Located in Brooklyn, NY, Designs by Millo, Inc. is a retailer of high-end fashion jewelry and luxury cosmetic brands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DOLCE & GABBANA: Brown Sues Over Botched NFT Deliveries ------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Hall, writing for Sourcing Journal, reports that NFTs lack the same level of clout they had a few years ago, and the fallout from the mainstream boom -- and bust -- of the NFT market continues to plague some brands that got in on the action. The ranks of companies under scrutiny for their NFT strategy grew this month to include Dolce & Gabbana. The luxury fashion brand has been named the defendant in a class-action lawsuit alleging that, when it sold NFTs, it made promises it did not deliver on. The complaint also names UNXD, an NFT marketplace that allegedly facilitated Dolce & Gabbana's NFT drops and transactions, as a defendant. The lead plaintiff, Luke Brown, filed the case in New York's Southern District Court earlier this month, claiming he purchased Dolce & Gabbana NFTs, called DGFamily. According to the complaint, Brown spent $6,000 on DGFamily assets under the pretense that "purchasers would later receive benefits, including, among other things, digital rewards, physical products and exclusive access to events." But per Brown and his counsel, he never received most of the benefits Dolce & Gabbana promised -- and the delivery of the NFTs was delayed. According to the complaint, "[Dolce & Gabbana] never provided a complete set of products [Brown] secured through his purchases of digital assets, despite repeatedly promising him the products would be delivered, while inevitably continuing to push back the delivery date." According to court documents, the release of the NFTs was delayed because the products had not been accepted onto the UNXD marketplace, which the companies did not disclose to investors at the time. In June 2022, the companies announced the first of eight benefits investors were due to receive, Brown claims. "The first drop. . . consisted of digital outfits that could be used only in a metaverse platform with barely any users, called Decentraland," the complaint states. One complaint metaverse users have long held is that the platforms do not support transferability of digital assets -- so, for instance, if a user has a digital asset in Decentraland, they cannot then transfer that asset over to Roblox, another metaverse platform. That seems to be a complaint among DGFamily investors, per Brown's complaint. Brown further alleges that Dolce & Gabbana and UNXD failed to obtain the proper permissions from Decentraland management before releasing their drops, which caused a delay for investors interested in using the digital products. A later drop, which the complaint says the companies called "Realta Parallela collection," was set to ship real-life products to investors, Brown contends; but, according to the complaint, many investors never received their packages, and those who did were slapped with customs and duties fees. Brown contended he lost $5,800 -- nearly 97 percent of his purported original investment -- because the value of the DGFamily NFTs depreciated so quickly. The class action he has started accuses Dolce & Gabbana and UNXD of fraud, breach of contract, negligence and more. The complaint alleges that Dolce & Gabbana "manipulated the digital currency market for DGFamily Products to their advantage by executing a ‘rug pull.'" In the type of transaction Brown discusses throughout the case, a rug pull typically refers to a company profiting off of consumers' cryptocurrency investments by axing a project after the currency has come in, but without delivering the so-called benefits an NFT had been marketed as allowing access to. And Brown believes that, in this case, the Dolce & Gabbana and UNXD did just that, saying that the companies have made the choice to "abandon" the project almost entirely. "On information and belief, defendants made the business decision to forgo an expensive and time-consuming process to complete the DGFamily project or support it, and instead deliberately undertook a scheme to defraud [Brown] and other consumers," the complaint alleges, going on to say that the companies' "standard operating procedure has been to promise products they fail to deliver, before abandoning a project and community they promised to support." This case is far from Dolce & Gabbana's only questionable business practice, as far as consumers are concerned. In 2018, the brand faced heavy scrutiny for what many called a racist advertisements in its Chinese market, which was only exacerbated by screenshots of Instagram direct messages with further derogatory comments about China, which allegedly came from Stefano Gabbana, the company's co-founder. Even prior to that, the company had left an unsavory taste in consumers' mouths, calling one of its products "the Slave Sandal" in 2016, according to New York Magazine, and, in 2012, sending white models down the runway with earrings reminiscent of Blackamoor statues, which, per the Guardian, "became an image that romanticized slavery and plantation life." Neither Dolce & Gabbana nor Brown's counsel responded to Sourcing Journal's request for comment on the case. [GN] EAST HARBOR: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EAST HARBOR KITCHEN, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04172 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying full and equal website access to blind and visually-impaired people. The Defendant operates the East Harbor restaurant in Yonkers, New York that offers Chinese and Japanese cuisine. Consumers may order food from the restaurant through the website, www.eastharboryonkersny.com, also owned and operated by Defendant. The Plaintiff, a blind, visually-impaired person, attempted multiple times, most recently on April 12, 2024, to access the website to make an online order from the restaurant, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Defendant allegedly failed to ensure that its website is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. East Harbor Kitchen, Inc. operates the East Harbor restaurant located in Yonkers, NY that offers Chinese and Japanese cuisine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-650 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ELI LILLY: Richards Appeals Ruling in Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Monica Richards has filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated May 10, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled MONICA RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY, LILLY USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00242-TWP-MKK, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The complaint is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law. According to the complaint, Eli Lilly has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against its older workers, including the Plaintiff, by systematically denying them promotions and giving those promotions to younger employees. The Plaintiff has worked for Eli Lilly since August 1, 2016. During her time at Eli Lilly, she has observed numerous other older employees be passed over for promotion in favor of less-qualified younger employees. Additionally, she has observed Eli Lilly's push to increase its focus on Millennial employees, both in terms of hiring and in terms of promotion, says the suit. After the Court granted conditional collective certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Eli Lilly filed a motion, asking the Court to certify an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The Court stands by its decision that Richards has met her step one burden to certify her ADEA claims as a conditional collective action under the FLSA. Nonetheless, Eli Lilly has demonstrated that the Court's March 25, 2024 conditional certification order involves a controlling question of law to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation. Thus, the Defendants' Motion to Certify an Immediate Appeal and Emergency Motion for a Stay was GRANTED. The Court CERTIFIED the following question for interlocutory appeal: Whether notice in a collective action can issue based on a modest factual showing of similarity, rather than upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that requires the Court to find that commonality across the collective is more likely than not. The Court ORDERED the statute of limitations for members of the conditionally certified collective defined in its March 25, 2024 order, to be tolled pending notification of a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate case is captioned as Monica Richards v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al., Case No. 24-8017, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 20, 2024.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MONICA RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 - and - Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON LLP 429 N. Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Defendants-Appellees ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al., are represented by: Jacob Moshe Roth, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 - and - James Robert Saywell, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 - and - Joseph James Torres, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Telephone: (312) 840-8685 ENERGY TRANSFER: Court Certifies Securities Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- A SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION is presented in the case: ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, DENVER EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, and IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L. WARREN, THOMAS E. LONG, MARSHALL MCCREA, and MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00200-GAM, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. To: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common units of Energy Transfer LP between February 25, 2017, and November 11, 2019, inclusive.1 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that the above-captioned action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above. In the Action, Lead Plaintiffs allege that, during the period from February 25, 2017, through and including November 11, 2019, Defendants made materially misleading or false representations regarding Energy Transfer's construction of a set of pipeline projects across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the Mariner East 2 and Mariner East 2X pipelines. Defendants have denied and continue to deny that they violated the federal securities laws as alleged by Lead Plaintiffs. Please note: at this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery. A trial date has not yet been set by the Court. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice") is currently being mailed to persons who have been identified as potential Class Members. In addition, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by downloading it from www.EnergyTransferSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Notice Administrator at: Energy Transfer Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91415 Seattle, WA 98111 (844) 717-0724 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the following representatives of Class Counsel: Jeffrey W. Golan Chad A. Carder BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (877) 386-3304 John Rizio-Hamilton Adam H. Wierzbowski BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, New York 10020 (800) 380-8496 If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you want to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in Energy Transfer common units. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address, please send the Notice Administrator written notification of your new address. If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment of this Court in this Action, however you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than July 16, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice. Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 1 Before October 19, 2018, Energy Transfer LP was known as Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and its common unit ticker symbol was ETE. On October 19, 2018, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. changed its name to Energy Transfer LP and changed its common unit ticker symbol to ET. [GN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Enphase Energy, Inc. ("Enphase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ENPH). 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 Enphase and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until July 29, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On April 25, 2023, Enphase issued a press release announcing its earnings for the first quarter of 2023. Among other items, Enphase reported that revenue in the United States had "decreased approximately 9% due to seasonality and macroeconomic conditions." On an accompanying earnings call, Enphases's top officers stated that the Company's "sell-through of microinverters in the U.S. was 21% lesser in Q1 compared to Q4" and that "[s]ell-through of our batteries in California was 23% lesser in Q1 compared to Q4 as installers focused mainly on solar." Enphase's quarterly results were at odds with the projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth that Enphase had provided less than three months earlier, on February 7, 2023. On this news, Enphase's stock price fell $56.77 per share, or 25.73%, to close at $163.83 per share on April 26, 2023. 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] EQUIFAX INC: Sued Over Electronic Verification Market Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------------- Flavia Furlan Nunes, writing for Housing Wie, reports that mortgage lenders First Financial Lending and Greystone Mortgage filed a class-action-seeking lawsuit accusing credit reporting agency Equifax of maintaining a monopoly in the market for electronic income and employment verification (VOIE). The case is tied to a strong increase in the cost of credit reports for mortgage lenders this year, which has been criticized by advocates such as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) head Rohit Chopra. The two mortgage lenders filed the antitrust lawsuit on May 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mortgage lenders use payroll data during the underwriting process to qualify borrowers, and without it, many consumers are unable to obtain a mortgage. These companies can check the information manually by calling employers, but the process is slow and expensive. It's more effective to rely on electronic verification services. According to the lawsuit, Equifax controls this market through a product it acquired in May 2007 called TALX Work Number. The plaintiffs state that the firm exercises monopolistic power through three primary strategies: entering multiyear, exclusive deals with large payroll software providers and employers; distributing "revenue shares" to these data providers; and spending "billions of dollars" acquiring companies that present a competitive risk. Katie R. Beran, lawyer for the plaintiffs and partner at Hausfeld, wrote to HousingWire that the lawsuit resulted from Hausfeld and Garwin Gerstein's year-long investigation. It revealed "not only Equifax's scheme to unlawfully maintain its monopoly over electronic income and employment verification services but also how the victims of that conduct who depend on the services -- mortgage brokers, lenders, and landlords, among others -- have been harmed." "We intend to hold Equifax accountable for its unlawful practices and provide meaningful compensation to its victims," Beran wrote. A spokesperson for Equifax said the company "is aware of a lawsuit filed" in Pennsylvania this week and "will respond to the litigation as appropriate." "Every day, verifications from The Work Number help people with important life events, like applying for a mortgage, purchasing a car, or seeking social service benefits. Our model starts with the consumer's engagement, and provides consumers, employers, and verifiers a frictionless process that offers the highest-class customer experience, quality, security, speed, accuracy and privacy," the spokesperson added. According to the plaintiffs, one piece of evidence of Equifax's monopolistic power is a gross margin that exceeds 50% with the electronic VOIE service, since it charges prices "far higher than a competitive market would bear." The service's price went from $17.85 in 2012 to $66.45 today -- an increase of 272%. This is the cost for a single transaction using current information, and the lawsuit states that the price rises to $200 for records with more historic information. Ultimately, Equifax's verification services generate close to $2 billion in profits per year, nearly 40% of the company's total, the document states. Further evidence of a monopoly is that "through its exclusive agreements with data contributors, Equifax has been able to foreclose competitors from at least 40% of the data inputs necessary to make a competing VOIE product viable. That continues to be the case today," the lawsuit reads. Per the lawsuit, two competitors -- Argyle and Certree -- submitted a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) "in the fall of 2022 alleging that the barriers to entry Equifax had erected slowed or prevented their entry to the market." According to the lawsuit, as of April 2024, Equifax had 670 million records of work numbers -- a key repository of employment and income data. This was more than double the 300 million records it had recently as 2021. They represent 126 million individuals, or more than 75% of U.S. nonfarm payroll workers, and 3 million employers. Most of the data is exclusive to Equifax. In 2008, the FTC accused the company TALX -- which sold the electronic VOIE product to Equifax -- of acquiring four rivals to reduce competition in the market. It resulted in TALX (then a Equifax subsidiary), Equifax and the FTC entering into a 10-year consent order in August 2008, which imposed limits on the company's acquisitions of other businesses in the market for electronic VOIE. Since 2021 -- after the expiration of the consent order -- Equifax has completed 14 acquisitions, one-third of them related to Equifax Workforce Solutions, the document added. Equifax's work number product has garnered attention from regulators. In a recent speech, CFPB head Chopra said that the bureau has observed its significant price increases. "Users tell us that Equifax's market dominance has given it pricing power that it has exercised over the past several years," he said. The lawsuit is based on public statements by Equifax, regulators, competitors and interviews with confidential witnesses. The lenders seek damages and injunctive relief, and demand a trial by jury. [GN] EXCEL INTERIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blasinghim Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BLASINGHIM, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXCEL INTERIOR DOOR, LLC; and RONALD G. HULSE, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00702-HNJ (N.D. Ala., May 31, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Blasinghim was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. EXCEL INTERIOR DOOR, LLC designs and manufactures building products. The Company offers molded and flush doors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Holmes Ave. NE, Ste. 100 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 Email: teri@mastandoartrip.com artrip@mastandoartrip.com FAT BRANDS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of FAT Brands Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT, FATBB, FATBP, FATBW) resulting from allegations that FAT Brands Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased FAT Brands securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3635 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 10, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California issued a press release entitled "Former CEO and Controlling Shareholder of FAT Brands Inc., Former CFO, and a Tax Advisor Indicted in Alleged Scheme to Conceal $47 Million Paid to CEO in the Form of Shareholder Loans." The press release stated that "Andrew A. Wiederhorn, the former CEO and current controlling shareholder of the publicly traded Fat Brands Inc. (FAT), has been indicted on federal charges alleging a scheme to conceal $47 million in distributions he received in the form of shareholder loans from the IRS, FAT’s minority shareholders, and the broader investing public, the Justice Department announced today." On this news, the price of FAT Brands Class A common stock fell by $2.08 per share, or 27.73%, to close at $5.42 on May 10, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Davis Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Harold Davis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of persons similarly situated v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK Of PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. C-03-CV-24-001538 was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on May 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01575-BAH. The Plaintiff alleges one cause of action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff served the Complaint, Writ of Summons, and Civil Case Information Report on FNB.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Abtin Mehdiz.adegan, Esq. Todd Wooten, Esq. HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. 200 River Market Avenue, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.214.3499 Fax: 501.604.5566 Email: Abtin@HallBoothSmith.com TWooten@HallBoothSmith.com FIVE STARS: Faces Collado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS COLLADO and MICHAEL DELGADO on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Five Stars of Brooklyn Incorporated; Five Stars of Brooklyn II Incorporated; Five Stars of Brooklyn III Incorporated; Five Stars of Brooklyn IV Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn V Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VI Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VII Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VIII Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn IX Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn X Inc.; 4200 Bergenline Mobile Inc.; and Morad Marashli, Case No. 1:24-cv-03943-JRC (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as non-exempt employees, managing mobile telecommunications stores owned and operated by Defendants. The Plaintiffs accuse Defendants of multiple violations of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the NJWHL, including among others, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours premium, and failure to provide wage notices and statements. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages due under the FLSA, NYLL, and NJWHL, unpaid spread-of-hours premium and commissions due under the NYLL, as well as liquidated damages, civil penalties, injunction, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and NJWHL. Headquartered in New Jersey, Five Stars of Brooklyn runs a chain of wireless telecommunications establishments throughout the state of New York and New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue Suite 1810 New York City, NY Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com FLORIDA: Judge Reschedules Medicaid Eligibility Class Suit Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Health News Florida reports that a federal judge has rescheduled a trial to start in July in a class-action lawsuit over people being dropped from Florida's Medicaid program after the end of a federal public health emergency declared because of the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard planned to hold a trial this month, but it was postponed because of a death in her family. Howard held a status conference in the case and will hear trial testimony July 11 from one of the plaintiffs, Kimber Taylor, before holding the remainder of the trial starting the week of July 29 or Aug. 5, according to a document posted on an online docket. The lawsuit alleges that the state did not properly inform people before dropping them from the health care program. The dispute is rooted in the spring 2023 end of the federal public health emergency, which started in 2020. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, and Washington agreed to pick up more of the tab for the program as part of the emergency. But in exchange for the extra money, states had to agree that they wouldn't drop people from the Medicaid rolls during the emergency. Florida's program grew from about 3.8 million beneficiaries in January 2020 to nearly 5.78 million in April 2023. At least in part, the increase stemmed from the program being unable to drop people who otherwise might not qualify because of their income levels. After the end of the public-health emergency, states began what is known as an eligibility "redetermination" process. In Florida alone, that process led to hundreds of thousands of people being dropped from the program. As of last month, enrollment was about 4.46 million, according to the state Agency for Health Care Administration. [GN] FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Jackson et al. Sue for Police Brutality ------------------------------------------------------------ JAYANNA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of a class, MIKE GABELUS, individually and on behalf of a class, and SCOTT ROSS, individually and on behalf of a class v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, a Municipal Corporation; RICK MAGLIONE, individually, DOUGLAS MACDOUGHALL, individually, STEVEN GREENLAW, individually, ROBERT DEITRICH, individually, AVERY FIGUERAS, individually, PAUL CRISTAFARO, individually, STEVEN SMITH, individually, ARYO REZAIE, individually, ZACHARY BARO, individually, CAMERON BURDICK, individually, JAN CALDERA, individually, JAMIE CHATMAN, individually, KEVIN DUPREE, individually, JESUS FERNANDEZ, individually, RYAN IJAMES, individually, ANDREW GOTTSTEIN, individually, JEFFREY JENKINS, individually, RAYMOND KETCHMARK, individually, RONALD MAGNO, individually, REMY RODRIGUEZ, individually, ELIEZER RAMOS, individually, FRANCO SMITH, individually, ROBERT SMITH, individually, DAVID SOIKA, individually, SEAN WALTERS, individually, Case No. 0:24-cv-60935 (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendants of federal civil rights violations arising from the alleged unlawful dispersal of a public assembly against police brutality in 2020. This action is in relation to a public demonstration against police brutality which took place on May 31, 2020 at the FAU Parking Garage in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, following the highly-publicized police-murder of George Floyd. While protesters, including Plaintiffs, were peacefully demonstrating, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department dispersed the assembly using tear gas and kinetic impact projectiles without warning or dispersal order allegedly because the FLPD disagreed with the demonstrators' message and decision to assemble. Plaintiffs suffered actual physical injuries as a result, says the suit. The police action was allegedly unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs bring this action to seek justice and compensation on behalf of every demonstrator who participated in the peaceful protest that day. The City of Fort Lauderdale is a coastal city in Florida operating under a Commission-Manager form of government. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart N. Ratzan, Esq. Stuart R. Weissman, Esq. Kimberly L. Boldt, Esq. RATZAN WEISSMAN & BOLDT 2850 Tigertail Avenue, Suite 400 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 374-6366 Facsimile: (305) 374-6755 E-mail: Stuart@rwblawyers.com StuartW@rwblawyers.com Kimberly@rwblawyers.com - and - Benedict P. Kuehne, Esq. Michael T. Davis, Esq. Johan D. Dos Santos KUEHNE DAVIS LAW, P.A. 100 SE 2 Street, Suite 3105 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-598 Facsimile: (305) 789-5987 E-mail: ben.kuehne@kuehnelaw.com mdavis@kuehnelaw.com johand@kuehnelaw.com efiling@kuehnelaw.com GENERAL DYNAMICS: Scharpf Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff SUSAN SCHARPF, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment dated April 19, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled SUSAN SCHARPF and ANTHONY D'ARMIENTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP., BATH IRON WORKS CORP., ELECTRIC BOAT CORP., GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK CO., INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC., HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., HII FLEET SUPPORT GROUP LLC, MARINETTE MARINE CORPORATION, BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, LLC, GIBBS & COX, INC., SERCO, INC., BMT INTERNATIONAL, INC., TECHNOLOGY FINANCING, INC., CACI INTERNATIONAL INC., THE COLUMBIA GROUP, INC., THOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, TRIDENTIS, LLC, and FASTSTREAM RECRUITMENT LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01372, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this complaint filed on October 6, 2023, is a class action against the Defendants for conspiracy to depress compensation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants, by and through their officers, directors, employees, or other representatives, have entered into an unlawful agreement, combination, and conspiracy to restrict competition in the naval engineering market. Specifically, the Defendants agreed to restrict competition for the Plaintiffs' and similarly situated naval engineers' services through restrictions on employment and recruitment from, between, and among each other, in the form of a long-standing and unwritten "gentlemen's agreement" not to affirmatively recruit one another's naval engineers. The Defendants could and did profitably suppress compensation paid to naval engineers in the United States below competitive levels. In such circumstances, naval engineers would not be able, and were not able, to defeat such artificial compensation suppression by switching their employment to non-conspiring employers, as the Defendants and co-conspirators control approximately 75 percent of the market. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been injured and will continue to be injured in their businesses and property by receiving less compensation from the Defendants and by depriving them of free and fair competition in the market for their services, says the suit. On April 19, 2024, Judge Anthony J. Trenga ruled that the Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The action is dismissed as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations; the Individual Motions are DENIED as moot; and the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement is DENIED as moot. The Clerk entered Judgment in accordance with the Order. The appellate case is captioned as SUSAN SCHARPF; ANTHONY D'ARMIENTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.; BATH IRON WORKS CORP.; ELECTRIC BOAT CORP.; GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.; HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC.; NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK CO.; INGALLS SHIPBULIDING, INC.; HII MISSION TECHNOLOGES CORP.; HII FLEET SUPPORT GROUP LLC; MARINETTE MARINE CORPORATION; BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, LLC; GIBBS & COX, INC.; SERCO, INC.; CACI INTERNATIONAL, INC.; THE COLUMBIA GROUP, INC.; THOR SOLUTIONS, LLC; TRIDENTIS, LLC; FASTSTREAM RECRUITMENT LTD., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-1465, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 22, 2024.[BN] GENERAL MILLS: Davis et al. Sue Over Race Discrimination at Work ---------------------------------------------------------------- GARY DAVIS, JOE DAVIS, JUSTIN HARRIS, DEVAHN JEFFERSON, KEITH MCCLINTON, DONALD OUTLAW, E.J. RIVERS, and NAAMAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02409-MLB-JKL (N.D. Ga., June 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of race discrimination. The Plaintiffs are current and former Black employees of Defendant who currently work, or previously worked within the last four years, at Defendant's manufacturing facility in Covington, GA. Since it opened, Defendant's Covington facility has allegedly embraced a racially hostile work environment due to the presence of a fraternal organization of male white supremacists operating in management and HR. Such a setup has allegedly systematically deprived Black employees the full and equal benefit of employment at the Covington location. Two white men, Jack Gilliam and Greg Cantrell, who were early hires at the Covington facility and quickly gained control of the East Plant, are believed to harbor discriminatory beliefs towards people of color and women. The pair allegedly used their control and influence at the Covington facility and formed an organization of white employees in management and HR called the "Good Ole Boys" to cause the company to take actions that aggrandized and enriched the Good Ole Boys and their white friends. The Good Ole Boys allegedly adopted policies allowing them to treat white employees more favorably than Black employees, thereby reducing the risk of liability findings in discrimination cases and reducing the risk of paying unemployment benefits, says the suit. The Plaintiffs now bring claims under the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and state nuisance law. General Mills Operations, LLC is a food company based in Minneapolis, MN. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas H. Dean, Esq. DEAN THAXTON, LLC 601 E. 14th Avenue (31015) Post Office Box 5005 Cordele, GA 31010 Telephone: (229) 271-9323 Facsimile: (229) 271-9324 E-mail: doug@deanthaxton.law GOLD MEDAL: Faces Wertz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------ RUSSELL WERTZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLD MEDAL ENVIRONMENTAL OF PA INC., and PARKS GARBAGE SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02352 (E.D. Pa., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants allegedly knowingly and deliberately failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of the FLSA and the PMWA. Additionally, Defendant failed to provide accurate wage statements, omitting key information, such as the hours Plaintiff spent working off the clock, and Plaintiff's accurate regular and overtime rate, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other current and former hourly Drivers who were employed by Defendants at any time from May 30, 2021 through the final disposition of this matter and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which Plaintiff worked and was paid. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid compensation, including overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and applicable penalties pursuant to the FLSA and the PMWA. Headquartered in Sewell, NJ, Gold Medal Environmental of PA Inc. provides waste management and recycling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam S. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM S. LEVY, LLC P.O. Box 88 Oreland, PA 19075 Telephone: (267) 994-6952 E-mail: adamslevy@comcast.net - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com GREATPLAINS FINANCE: Ransom Files 3rd Circuit Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff RASHONNA M. RANSOM has filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinions and Orders entered in the lawsuit styled RAJSHONNA RANSOM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREATPLAINS FINANCE, LLC d/b/a CASH ADVANCE NOW, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01344-WJM-JBC, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In this putative class action against Defendant GreatPlains Finance, LLC d/b/a Cash Advance Now ("GPF" or "Defendant") for engaging in usurious payday loans, the Defendant moved for reconsideration of the Court's Jan. 22, 2024 Opinion and Order. Plaintiff Rashonna Ransom obtained two separate high interest loans from online lender GPF -- one on Oct. 26, 2015, for $300 at an Annual Percentage Rate ("APR") of 652.36% and another on April 18, 2016, for $450 at an APR of 54239%. In brief, GPF is owned by the Fort Belknap Indian Community ("Tribe" or "FBIC") and was initially managed by Dater Portfolio Management LLC, a non-tribal entity, from its inception in 2012 until 2017. Since about 2017, GPF has been exclusively managed by the Fort Belknap Planning and Development Corporation, d/b/a Island Mountain Development Group ("IMDG"), the economic development arm of the Tribe. On Nov. 23, 2021, GPF executed a Loan and Security Agreement to borrow $10 million from various non-tribal lenders acting under the administrative agent Newport Funding, LLC ("NF"). Under that Loan Agreement, the Tribe is prohibited from taking certain actions without triggering an Event of Default. When an Event of Default occurs, the administrative agent is authorized to assume immediate control over certain of GPF's financial accounts and to maintain aspects of managerial control over GPF while the Event of Default remains in effect. In its Jan. 22 Opinion, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that GPF was not entitled to sovereign immunity as an arm of the Tribe. To decide that question, the Court examined five of the factors used in Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chuckchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010), and concluded that two of the factors favored a finding of immunity, but that three of the factors weighed against arm of the tribe immunity, including the factor at issue in this reconsideration motion -- the structure, ownership, and management of the entity, which includes the amount of control the Tribe has over GPF. The Court found that this factor weighed against arm of the tribe immunity because pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the administrative agent, NF, had declared an Event of Default on Jan. 20, 2023, and had asserted "immediate control" over aspects of GPF's financial accounts until NF determined the Event of Default cured. The Defendant asked the Court to reconsider its ruling because it alleges new, previously unavailable evidence: on Jan. 29, 2024, after the Court's Jan. 22 decision, NF executed a Waiver Agreement as to Events of Default that occurred on or about Jan. 20, 2023 ("Specified Events of Default"). The Defendant insists that the Waiver Agreement restores fall tribal management of GPF and, thus, entitles it to arm of the tribe sovereign immunity. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William J. Martini of the District of New Jersey entered an Opinion and Order on April 18, 2024 denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration. The Defendant appealed on May 13, 2024. On May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff also filed its appeal. The appellate case is captioned as Rashonna Ransom v. GreatPlains Finance LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1908, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Defendant-Appellant GREATPLAINS FINANCE LLC, DBA Cash Advance Now is represented by: Mark H. Reeves, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON 1450 Greene Street, Suite 230 Augusta, GA 30901 Telephone: (706) 823-4206 - and - Rob R. Smith, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-9600 - and - Frederick L. Whitmer, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND 1114 Avenue of the Americas The Grace Building, 21st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 775-8773 Plaintiff-Appellee RASHONNA M. RANSOM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: David J. Guzik, Esq. Mark H. Jensen, Esq. Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 HERTZ GLOBAL: Doller Sues for Alleged Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------ EDWARD M. DOLLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., STEPHEN M. SCHERR, and ALEXANDRA BROOKS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00513 (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating federal securities laws by misrepresenting material facts about Hertz's business and operations. This is a federal securities class action on behalf all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz securities between April 27, 2023 and April 24, 2024, during which Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding Hertz's business, operations, and prospects. In particular, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the potential financial impact of vehicle depreciation on the company, the actual demand for Hertz's EVs, and the factors affecting the company's profitability. When the truth emerged, Hertz's stock price dropped significantly, causing major losses and damages to Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages and pursue remedies for Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is a vehicle rental company based in Estero, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1625 N. Commerce Pkwy, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com nczipperian@millershah.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 HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Cannabis Abatement Suit Gains Media Attention ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nichole Norris, writing for https://kymkemp.com/, reports that what began in the hills of rural Humboldt County, in the law office of late attorney Eugene Denson, and was reported on here, at the Redheaded Blackbelt, has struck a chord with a national and international audiences in both the Daily Mail and the US Sun. The Daily Mail's senior reporter Miles Dilworth, who is based in London, wrote an article featuring interviews with the abatement lawsuit plaintiffs; Corrine and Doug Thomas, Rhonda Olson and Blu Graham who were also featured in previous articles here. Dilworth wrote, "Astonishingly, [the Thomases] are among dozens of unwitting homeowners [who] have been targeted by Humboldt County, whose officials have been accused in a class action lawsuit of trying to 'squeeze every dollar' it can out of legalized marijuana 'at the expense of innocent people'. The Daily Mail article continues to highlight the issues. It states, "Retiree Rhonda Olson, 64, faces fines of more than $7million because someone else grew weed on her property before she bought it. And Blu Graham, 51, was hit with penalties of around $900,000 based on 'unfounded and uninvestigated allegations' that he was growing cannabis in his greenhouses, whereas in reality he was growing vegetables for his restaurant. Similarly, a chicken farmer was prosecuted by the county for growing cannabis in a greenhouse in which he was in fact rearing chicks. The extraordinary claims are laid bare in a lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice [IJ]. Attorney Jared McClain told DailyMail.com that officials were 'lashing out' in an attempt to reap the promised financial rewards of legalization, which are yet to materialize." Another outlet, the US Sun, also published an article that featured a quote from this reporter in a RHBB news article, which reads, "A decision on the lawsuit is pending. "I have been waiting for four years to get my day in court with seven million in fines hanging over my head, and I couldn't be more thrilled with the line of questioning by the Judges on the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals," Olson told local journalist Nichole Norris in April. "If it weren't for our brilliant lawyers, Jared McClain, Robert Johnson from the Institute for Justice, we would've just had to accept what Humboldt County is doing to us." Doug Thomas agreed." Our coverage of Humboldt County property owners who were abated and fined, for previous owners code enforcement issues and cannabis-related crimes, began with an anonymous interview with plaintiff Blu Graham in March 2020. It was March 2022 when our coverage of the abatement program got the attention of the national human interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, who then filed this suit in October 2022 against Humboldt County, and then attributed the litigation directly to local reporting on Twitter (now X), and also on KMUD radio. Slowly but surely, the lawsuit is currently moving through the courts after being entirely dismissed at the district level. In this interview in April with attorney Jared McClain outside the court of appeals in San Francisco after oral arguments, he details why he believes the total dismissal by Judge Illman was so perplexing. The Institute for Justice appealed the lower courts decision to the Ninth Circuit, made oral arguments in April, and is currently awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit court of appeals now. The two possible outcomes moving forward are that the Ninth Circuit could either affirm or reverse the decision, if they affirm the decision, it means they agree that the magistrate was right to dismiss this case. If they reverse the decision, they'll remand, or send it back to the district court -- either back to Magistrate Illman or to a new, randomly assigned judge in the Northern District of California. Because Magistrate Illman is the only judge in the Eureka Division, the case would probably go to San Francisco if it's reassigned to a new judge. Attorney Jared McClain explained that "what happens next is an open question," and wrote, "Typically [the Ninth Circuit judges] would decide that [Judge Illman] erred by dismissing our case, and the next step would be going to discovery at the district court. But there's a chance they may "vacate" his decision instead of reversing it. In that case, they'd say that he screwed up so badly in how he analyzed our complaint, that they'll basically give the case to a new trial judge to decide the motion to dismiss again. . . It's impossible to say, unfortunately, how long it will take the court to rule. There's no timetable; it's just whenever the court gets done writing the opinion." Stay tuned to RHBB for more on this story and please consider donating to help continue this expansive local reporting, that makes a difference to our community and beyond. [GN] INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Intel Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTC). 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 Intel and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until July 2, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Intel securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On April 2, 2024, after the markets closed, Intel issued a press release which disclosed a retrospective revision of the Company's financial results under the new Foundry model reporting structure, revealing that the Foundry segment experienced an operating loss of $7 billion on sales of $18.9 billion in 2023, that Foundry revenue in 2023 was $18.9 billion down $8.6 billion from 2022, and that the segment's operating loss included a $2.1 million in lower product profit driven by lower internal revenue. On this news, Intel's stock price fell $3.61 per share, or 8.2%, to close at $40.33 per share on April 3, 2024. Then, on April 25, 2024, after the markets closed, Intel released its first quarter 2024 financial results, the first quarter reporting the Company's results under the Foundry model, disclosing that the Company's Foundry segment declined 10% compared to the same quarter last year, to revenue of $4.4 billion. On this news, Intel's stock price fell $3.23 per share, or 9.2%, to close at $31.88 per share on April 26, 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] J.P. MORGAN: Walton Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL WALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03959 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024) is a class action arising out of a 2024 unauthorized access of documents and information stored on the computer network of the Defendant. According to the Notice of Data Breach Letter that the Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, JP first became aware of the security incident on February 28, 2024. JP finally began notifying the unknown or undisclosed number of victims on about April 18, 2024, over a month after the Data Breach occurred, stating that their personally identifiable information had been exposed in what Defendant calls a "software issue." As a result of JP's Data Breach, Plaintiff and thousands (if not more) of Class Members, suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach, says the suit. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational finance company headquartered in New York City and incorporated in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com LEAF HOME: Sisco Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA SISCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEAF HOME ENHANCEMENTS, LLC, a Delaware registered company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04408 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant places solicitation calls to consumers to generate business. However, these calls are being placed to consumers without consent, including to consumers like the Plaintiff who registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, says the suit. Leaf Home Bath is a company registered in Delaware with its headquarters located in Lombard, IL. It solicits bathroom remodeling solutions to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juneitha Shambee Esq. SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD. 701 Main St., Ste. 201A Evanston, IL. 60202 Telephone: (773) 741-3602 E-mail: juneitha@shambeelaw.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com LONG BEACH CITY: Court Certifies Minimum Wage Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Evans, writing for Long Beach Post News, reports that a judge has certified a class action lawsuit alleging Long Beach City College is violating minimum wage laws for part-time faculty, a ruling that could have significant financial consequences for the local college along with legal and legislative repercussions around the state. The April decision by Superior Court Judge Stuart Rice means the two original plaintiffs, both art history professors at LBCC, can also sue on behalf of other colleagues who believe they are owed back pay for hours spent on non-classroom activities like grading, preparation and meetings with students. The lawsuit could involve as many as 1,200 other part-time faculty, said Eileen Goldsmith, the attorney representing the lead plaintiffs, Karen Roberts and Seija Rohkea. "There is a real need for systemic change in how part-time faculty are compensated," she said. "It’s a tough way to make a living." [GN] LORETTO HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aderohunmu Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ADEYEMI ADEROHUNMU, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LORETTO HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Aderohunmu was employed by the Defendant as a nurse assistant. LORETTO HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER is a nursing home in Syracuse, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Files, Esq. Frank Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Tel: (315) 314-8000 Fax: (315) 446-7521 Email: rfiles@gclawoffice.com fgattuso@gclawoffice.com LYFT INC: Court Stays Employee Misclassification Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Brennan, writing for Hicks Morley, reports that in Wasylyk v. Lyft, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a stay of a proposed employee misclassification class action in favour of private arbitration. The case provides an illustration of the factors that may support the enforceability of an arbitration clause in disputes related to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). The plaintiff filed a class proceeding claim against Lyft Inc. and Lyft Canada Inc. (collectively, Lyft). The proposed class action related to allegations that the plaintiff, a Lyft driver, and other class members were employees under the ESA and, as such, were entitled to minimum wage, overtime, vacation, holiday pay and other ESA entitlements. There was no dispute the plaintiff had agreed to Lyft's terms of service and its arbitration agreement (Arbitration Provisions) as a condition of becoming a Lyft driver. Some of the key Arbitration Provisions included: -- Arbitration is the exclusive mechanism for dispute resolution "except as otherwise provided in the agreement or required by applicable law." -- Dispute resolution proceedings on a class, collective or representative basis are prohibited. -- A driver may opt out of the Arbitration Provisions by contacting Lyft's lawyers in Vancouver within 30 days of executing the agreement. A driver, however, may not opt out of the class action waiver. -- The arbitration would take place in the nearest municipality to the driver's billing address. -- The substance of any claim would be decided in accordance with Ontario law. Arbitrations would be procedurally governed by the American Arbitration Association, which offers rules and procedures for a variety of types of arbitrations, and in several different languages. -- Lyft would bear the cost of arbitration for any driver claim that alleged the individual was an employee of Lyft (in addition to other types of claims). The driver would need only pay a contribution equivalent to the filing fees that would otherwise be paid to a court in that jurisdiction to commence a claim. -- A claim could be heard in writing or on the telephone if the claim is for $10,000 or less. Pursuant to s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, when a party commences an action, their opponent may bring an action to have the action stayed on the ground that the parties have agreed to arbitration of the dispute. Section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act outlines various exemptions to the granting of a stay. The plaintiff relied on these exemptions and took the position his class action ought to proceed. In rejecting this argument, the Court held: -- The Arbitration Provisions were accessible to the plaintiff. In Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller (Uber), discussed in our Case in Point of June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada held that an arbitration clause that required a driver to travel to the Netherlands to pursue arbitration was inaccessible and, as such, unenforceable. In the present case, the Court was satisfied the Arbitration Provisions contain no similar geographic or cost barriers to arbitration. Further, the dispute would be determined in accordance with Ontario law and not the laws of a foreign jurisdiction. -- The Arbitration Provisions were not unenforceable due to uncertainty. The plaintiff alleged there was uncertainty around the procedure for arbitration and this rendered the Arbitration Provisions invalid. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the manner of arbitration is not an essential term, and that modern dispute resolution processes generally favour flexibility and "the flexibility provided by the arbitration agreement can be seen to be an incidental virtue not a vice . . . . " -- The Arbitration Provisions were not unenforceable due to unconscionability. The plaintiff, again relying on the Uber decision, claimed the Arbitration Provisions were unconscionable due to the inequality of bargaining power and its associated impact on the bargaining process. While the Court accepted the assumption there would be an inequality of bargaining power, the Court held this did not give rise to a substantially "improvident or unfair bargain," where the stronger party was unduly advantaged. In this case, arbitration was an "accessible, feasible, and a fair dispute resolution system." -- The Arbitration Provisions were not unenforceable on the grounds of public policy. The Court held that, absent legislation to the contrary, courts must enforce arbitration agreements. Public policy favours the use of these agreements as an "acceptable, preferable, and generally available alternative to court actions." With respect to ESA claims specifically, the Court held that if the Legislature wished, it could prohibit the use of arbitration as a mechanism to resolve such claims but had not done so. -- The Arbitration Provisions were not an unlawful contracting out of the ESA. The Court held the language used in the Arbitration Provisions did not contract out of the ESA. While there was repeated reference to the use of arbitration as the exclusive dispute mechanism, this was consistently subject to the caveat that this was "to the extent permitted by law." The Court held this qualification "means that resort to the enforcement provisions of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 is permitted because the Employment Standards Act, 2000 is a law permitting employees access to the services of an administrative agency to decide disputes." -- The matter was not appropriate for summary judgment. The Court noted this specific statutory exemption should be exercised only in the "simplest and clearest of cases where a summary judgment would demonstrably be the most just and expeditious way to resolve the dispute." As this was a class action related to allegations of employee misclassification, there would still need to be an assessment of individual issues and, as such, liability could not be determined class-wide on a summary judgment motion. Key Takeaways While this is certainly not the last we will hear from the courts on this topic, this decision provides an illustration of some of the key features of an arbitration clause that a court may consider in determining its enforceability. Organizations which use arbitration as a dispute mechanism tool for ESA-related disputes should review their own agreements with counsel, taking into account this case and the Uber decision. [GN] MALIBU BOATS: Blasingame Sues Over Defective Motor Boats -------------------------------------------------------- TERRY BLASINGAME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MALIBU BOATS, LLC; and MALIBU BOATS, INC., Defendants, Case 1:24-cv-00648-UNA (D. Del., May 31, 2024) is a consumer class action concerning the misrepresentation of material facts and the failure to disclose material facts and safety concerns to consumers regarding the Defendants' watersports motor boats. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles were being sold with a safety defect that materially affects the vehicles' ability to operate as intended and to provide safe and reliable transportation. Instead, the Defendants sold the vehicles with seating capacities exceeding the capacities that were in fact safe by placing a portion of the seats in the Class Vehicles in a portion of the boats that was easily swamped by water and where any seated passengers could be injured or pulled from the boat while it is in motion (the "Defect"). The Plaintiffs and Class members have purchased and leased Class Vehicles that they would not otherwise have purchased or leased, or would have paid less for, had they known of the Defect at the point of sale. MALIBU BOATS, LLC manufactures and distributes recreational vehicles. The Company designs, produces, and markets water sports boats, spare parts, information display systems, and mounted cameras. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 691-9545 Email: rpaul@bm.net - and - Abigail Gertner, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: agertner@bm.net - and - Mark Ozzello, Esq. Calvin Marshall, Esq. THE OZZELLO PRACTICE PC 400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (844) 774-2020 Facsimile: (844) 774-2020 Email: cmarshall@ozzellolaw.com mark@ozzellolaw.com MERCY HEALTH: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Action for $1.8 Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that consumers could receive benefits from a $1.8 million Mercy Health data breach settlement resolving claims it failed to protect patients from a 2020 data breach perpetrated by a Mercy employee. The settlement benefits individuals who received a notification from Mercy Health in December 2020 informing them the employee may have improperly accessed their or their child's information. In 2020, a Mercy Health employee improperly accessed patient information, according to a data breach notification from the health care company. According to plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit, Mercy Health could have prevented the breach with reasonable cybersecurity and access control measures. Mercy Health is a health care system with locations in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Mercy Health hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.8 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Mercy Health data breach settlement, class members can receive a flat payment of up to $90 from the settlement. Class members who have documented data breach-related expenses can receive an additional $300 in reimbursement. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June 18, 2024. To receive Mercy Health data breach settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 10, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a notification from Mercy Health in December 2020 informing them an employee may have improperly accessed their or their child's information Potential Award $390 Proof of Purchase Receipts, invoices, account statements and other documentation of data breach-related expenses NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline June 10, 2024 Case Name T.D., et al. v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities d/b/a Mercy Hospital St. Louis, et al., Case No. 20SL-CC05974, in the Missouri Circuit Court for St. Louis County Final Hearing June 18, 2024 Settlement Website MercySettlement.com Claims Administrator Mercy Health Settlement c/o Atticus Administration PO Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 mercysettlement@atticusadmin.com (800) 935-5170 Class Counsel Maureen M Brady MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 4006 Central St Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Christopher E Roberts BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave # 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 Todd C Werts LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley St, Columbia, MO 65201 Phone: (573) 875-1991 Defense Counsel Jeffrey R Fink THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel: (314) 552-6000 Fax: (314) 552-7000 [GN] MOHO MEXICAN: Faces Carrizalez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- MARIA CARRIZALEZ v. MOHO MEXICAN GRILL LLC and MOHIB MIHRABIZADA, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-03970 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a packer from June 2, 2022 until May 13, 2024, consistently working beyond the standard 40-hour workweek. However, throughout the entire period of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half her regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff was only paid at a flat hourly rate of $15 and $16 instead of the legally mandated overtime compensation laid out under the FLSA and the NYLL. Additionally, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide written notice of wage rates to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, which is a clear violation of the WTPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover liquidated damages for unpaid overtime wages and financial losses incurred, statutory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as applicable, attorney’s fees and costs, and other relief. Moho Mexican Grill LLC operates as a Mexican restaurant located at 3805 Bell Blvd, Queens, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com OLIVIA AVA: Mashkevich Sues Over Illegal Cryptocurrency Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MASHKEVICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLIVIA AVA, EMMA MILLER, and F.B. LEE, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00687-CLM (N.D. Ala., May 29, 2024) alleges a cryptocurrency scam in which Defendants promise their victims they will be paid for performing standardized online work, and then steal their money. The scheme with Plaintiff began on or about March 20, 2024, when Defendants first contacted Plaintiff via WhatsApp. The Defendants followed the standardized playbook, luring Plaintiff to transfer progressively greater amounts of money. The Defendants represented that Plaintiff's funds were invested in cryptocurrency assets through the fake work platforms. The Defendants subsequently blocked Plaintiff from accessing his accounts and transferring funds. They used a systematic multi-stage crypto theft scheme to target Class Members, including Plaintiff, and lured them to transfer increasing amounts of cryptocurrency as part of fake work platforms, says the suit. The Defendants represent that the work involves real and legitimate online tasks, including tasks related to software applications at real companies (e.g., Grayphite, Resy, or inMobi) and that anyone can and should confirm the work platform's legitimacy by searching. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Riley, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. James E. Murrill, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 E-mail: rob@rileyjacksonlaw.com kj@rileyjacksonlaw.com jay@rileyjacksonlaw.com OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses PHI Disclosure Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Health Law Weekly reports that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently dismissed a class action against Overlake Hospital Medical Center (Overlake) alleging it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its own privacy policies by installing browser plugins on its public website and private patient portal that "secretly enabled" the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of patients' confidential information to third parties. [GN] PRIORITY WRECKER: Kirby Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR L. KIRBY and THOMAS MAYNARD, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRIORITY WRECKER SERVICE, INC, and JONATHAN MAYE, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00664 (M.D. Tenn., May 29, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid commissions, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Kirby and Maynard were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid tow-truck drivers. However, the Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for all their compensable work hours at the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods. The Plaintiffs also assert claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit under Tennessee state law. Priority Wrecker Service, Inc. provides wrecker services in Tennessee and Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Freeman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Progressive Direct Insurance Company has filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated May 8, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled Lynn Freeman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03798-DCC, in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The suit was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit in Aiken County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 19, 2021. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Progressive Direct issued her automobile insurance policy, that she was in an automobile accident on May 19, 2021, and that Progressive Direct determined that her vehicle was a total loss. The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive Direct improperly valued her total loss claim because it used a valuation system provided by Mitchell International, Inc. that applies a Projected Sold Adjustment (PSA) to determine the value of her total loss vehicle. The PSA adjusts an unsold vehicle's sticker price to account for typical negotiation differences between list and sale prices, a practice Plaintiff contends does not reflect market realities and results in under-payment of claims. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Donald Coggins, Jr. entered an order on May 8, 2024 denying the Defendant's motions to exclude declarations and reports and testimonies of expert witnesses. The Defendant's motion to exclude the reports and testimony of Todd Caputo and Kirk Felix was granted in part and denied in part as set out. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted, and the Court certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Direct Insurance Company to a South Carolina resident who, from Oct. 15, 2018 through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. Report Code="COMP") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." The appellate case is captioned as Progressive Direct Insurance Company v. Lynn Freeman, Case No. 24-177, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 22, 2024.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Beattie Balentine Ashmore, Esq. BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, PA 650 East Washington Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 467-1001 - and - Julia Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 500 West 2nd Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-2000 - and - James Matthew Brigman, Esq. Jeffrey Cashdan, Esq. Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. Erin Munger, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 - and - Nicole Bronnimann, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 - and - Christine M. Carletta, Esq. Paul Alessio Mezzina, Esq. Amy R. Upshaw, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Plaintiff-Respondent LYNN FREEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq. Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. Tiffany Oldham, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC 519 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 Northeast 30th Avenue Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 - and - Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 East Altamonte Drive Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 - and - Shane William Rogers, Esq. William Douglas Smith, Esq. JOHNSON, SMITH, HIBBARD & WILDMAN P. O. Drawer 5587 Spartanburg, SC 29304-8121 Telephone: (864) 582-8121 - and - Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 Northeast 1st Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Bid for Protective Order OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYRONE HAZEL, et al., v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for protective order. Hazel and Evans are named plaintiffs in this putative class action but seek to dismiss their claims because they have received evidence from Defendants indicating that they are not class members. The Defendants nonetheless seek to depose them and seek responses to written discovery from them because Defendants argue that Hazel and Evans nonetheless have information that is relevant to the litigation. Hazel and Evans move for a protective order to prevent their depositions from going forward and to ensure that they need not respond to written discovery. Prudential provides financial services throughout the United States and several locations worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vdVh1n at no extra charge.[CC] RAMS FINANCIAL: Franchisees Sues Over Contract Terminations ----------------------------------------------------------- Annie Kane, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that a major court action has been lodged against RAMS Financial Group Pty Ltd (RAMS) by former franchisees who allege that the group unjustly terminated their contracts. RAMS is a Westpac subsidiary that sees franchisees sell Westpac home loan products (following its pivot in business model in 2020). The class action -- filed by Morris Mennilli Lawyers on behalf of certain former RAMS franchisees -- has come about after RAMS allegedly terminated the authorised credit representative agreements and franchise agreements held by around 20 franchisees last year. This is believed to be about a third of the entire network size. The Westpac-owned mortgage brand has confirmed to The Adviser it had "exited a number of franchisees that did not meet required standards under their contractual arrangements" following a review by Westpac and RAMS Finance Group. The lender confirmed that "disputes" had been raised by franchisees in relation to this action. What are the arguments? RAMS contends that the terminations were justified because it had identified suspected and alleged "anomalies" in documents provided by loan applicants to the franchisees in support of applications for RAMS branded home loans. However, those bringing the class action contend that RAMS had breached its contractual and statutory obligations of good faith because it had terminated their franchise agreements without proper cause. They are also challenging the brand's withholding of trail commission. They argue that the "anomalies" cited are either without basis (and their detection arises from flawed investigations), or, if the "anomalies" can be substantiated, they occurred because RAMS had failed to implement or comply with its business systems for responsible lending (rather than by the fault of the franchisees). Indeed, the class action documents show that those who were being reviewed were not informed that the reviews were being conducted. But the documents show that the group reviews resulted in concerns from the company relating to "purported anomalies relating to the authenticity of documents submitted by staff" and/or instances of possible fraud by the applicants" for certain products. Other concerns raised included alleged "failures by the franchisees to put in place adequate arrangements, or comply with such arrangements, in order to meet their obligations as an authorised credit representative"; and concerns that the risks of the franchisee in continuing their business "could no longer be sufficiently mitigated". The documents show that the reviews also raised some concerns in relation to "high rates of suspected false company tax returns and financials, misrepresented savings, undisclosed liabilities and savings that could not be validated"; and multiple occurrences of purportedly "suspected false company tax returns and financials, suspected false personal tax returns and savings and incomes that could not be validated". As such, RAMS elected to exercise its discretion to revoke certain franchisee agreements. Those involved in the class action allege that RAMS never told the franchisees that it was conducting reviews, nor what the resulting suspected "anomalies" were and were never provided with an opportunity to address the suspected "anomalies". They also claim that some of the identified issues may have arisen due to issues with RAMS policy and processes, rather than those of the franchisee. In a statement provided to The Adviser, Westpac said it "takes its obligations seriously and will be defending the claim". The total damages sought by the claim are unspecified. Westpac looking to sell RAMS The class action is one of several issues Westpac is facing relating to the RAMS brand. In its interim financial results, Westpac noted that it had "engagement with various regulators in relation to RAMS", including an enforcement investigations by ASIC into RAMS Finance Group Pty Limited and RAMS authorised credit representatives (including RAMS franchisees in connection with the provision of home loan products from 1 January 2019 to 1 September 2023). The current focus on ASIC's investigation is on RAMS's general conduct obligations, prohibitions on conducting business with unlicensed persons, and giving misleading information. Other regulatory investigations reportedly include "enquiries by ASIC into principal, interest and fee repayment calculations in relation to certain business lending products". Westpac told The Adviser: "Westpac self-reported to ASIC after identifying issues in some home loan applications through its risk review processes. "We have taken a range of actions to strengthen these processes and have exited franchisees where necessary in accordance with their contractual arrangements. "We will continue to cooperate with regulators on this matter." Westpac Group has previously said that it is "considering strategic options in relation to the RAMS business". [GN] RTJ INVESTMENTS: Ozburn Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTJ Investments, LLC. The case is styled as Paul Ozburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RTJ Investments, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00373-RK (W.D. Mo., May 31, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RTJ Investments -- https://rtjinvestments.com/ -- specialize in providing comprehensive real estate services tailored to meet the unique needs of homeowners in Kansas and Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maxwell Cory Nelson, Esq. MCN LAW LLC 12433 Antioch # 25442 Overland Park, KS 66225 Phone: (913) 358-5800 Email: mcorynelson@mcnlawllc.com SAINT JOSEPH'S: Cantave Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAULIE CANTAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03181-MMB (E.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 undergraduate students enrolled at SJU who satisfied their tuition payment obligation and attended at least one in-person class on campus during the Spring 2020 semester but had their class(es) moved to online learning" (3) Preliminarily appointing Plaintiff Jaulie Cantave 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, attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Nicholas A. Colella; and (7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. The Defendant is a private Jesuit university in Philadelphia and Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IDE0Sj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com - and - Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com SAKER ENTERPRISES: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties ----------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. SAKER ENTERPRISES OF FREEHOLD, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company Case No. 3:24-cv-06602 (D.N.J., May 31, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for inaccessible properties. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers he has personally experienced. The following are architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that The Plaintiff has personally encountered during his visits to the Property: The designated accessible parking spaces throughout the Property are not maintained, contain surface cracks, contain potholes, and contain abrupt changes of level beyond the allowable limit; in violation of the ADAAG and Sections 402 and 502 of the 2010 ADA Standards. Restrooms within tenant spaces, including those within Dunkin Donuts, Ocean Nails Spa, and Suenie Beauty Salon, are inaccessible to The Plaintiff (and all mobility impaired persons), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities. SAKER ENTERPRISES OF FREEHOLD, LLC owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: Direct (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com SALVATION ARMY: Tassinari Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK TASSINARI, RICHARD ESPINOSA, and JOSEPH ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-10806-LTS (D. Mass), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Injunction Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act: "All individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) who, in accordance with a healthcare provider's treatment plan, take any form of prescribed FDA-approved methadone or buprenorphine medication for opioid use disorder, including Suboxone and Sublocade ("MOUD") and who are participating or seek to participate in any of Defendant's Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC) housing or services." 2. Certifying the following Section 504 Damages Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for purposes of claims for damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: "All individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom, from the period May 14, 2018 to the date of class notice (the "Section 504 Class Period"): (1) Defendant's call logs, applicant files, or emails show they were denied access to any of the Defendant's ARC housing or services because they were taking or had taken any form of prescribed FDA-approved methadone or buprenorphine medication for opioid use disorder, including MOUD; (2) Defendant's beneficiary files show they were discharged from any of Defendant's ARCs because of taking MOUD; or (3) Defendant's files show they were admitted to an ARC and their primary "abused" substance upon intake was opiates." 3. Certifying the following FHA Damages Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for purposes of claims for damages under the Fair Housing Act: "All individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom, from the period May 14, 2019 to the date of class notice (the "FHA Class Period"): (1) Defendant's call logs, applicant files, or emails show they were denied access to any of Defendant's ARC housing or services because they were taking or had taken any form of prescribed FDA-approved methadone or buprenorphine medication for opioid use disorder, including MOUD; (2) Defendant's beneficiary files show they were discharged from any of Defendant's ARCs because of taking MOUD; or (3) Defendant's files show they were admitted to an ARC and their primary "abused" substance upon intake was opiates." 4. Naming Plaintiffs Mark Tassinari, Richard Espinosa, and Joseph Almeida as class representatives of the Injunction Class and the Section 504 Damages Class; and naming Plaintiffs Mark Tassinari and Joseph Almeida as class representatives of the FHA Damages Class; and 5. Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. This Motion is made on the grounds that all the requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied because each proposed Class is sufficiently numerous, there are common issues of law and fact, and the proposed class representatives are typical and adequate. Salvation is a Protestant Christian church and an international charitable organization. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6rSIjw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Murray, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. Christine M. Salazar, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: mmurray@altber.com csalazar@altber.com cchan@altber.com - and - Janet Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 40 Rector Street, Floor 9 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org SAN DIEGO, CA: January Flood Victims Sues Over City's Negligence ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Mae, writing for KPBS, reports that a new class action lawsuit against the city of San Diego alleges money designated for Chollas Creek stormwater infrastructure, repairs and maintenance was used to buy the 101 Ash St. building, "a building the city could not use," the lawsuit says. Attorneys from the firms Aguirre & Severson and Gomez Trial Attorneys announced the lawsuit on filed on behalf of nearly 100 people impacted by the January floods. Attorney Maria Severson said residents have been affected by the city's "utter failure" to maintain its Chollas Creek flood control infrastructure. "What we found out during our investigation is that the city had funds to do storm water repairs, do Chollas Creek infrastructure repairs and maintenance and the city actually published and touted accomplishments. But the accomplishments we found were not really true." She said those accomplishments were stated as being "in progress, or or to be done," but were not scheduled or performed. "These people were still left in a dangerous condition of the city's property, and in the path of that destruction," she said. Robert Villa is one of the plaintiffs whose family home was badly damaged in the flooding. He said he and his neighbors want justice and for the city to take accountability. "The city failed. This, plain and simple, failed us, neglected, ignored and didn't come to the aid the way that we thought that they would. You know, having to be with my handicapped sister on one little step stool as the water is up to here and she freaking out with her mentality, not knowing what's going to happen," Villa said. A spokesperson from the city attorney's office said they do not comment on pending litigation. [GN] SANJAY CHAKRABARTY: Edelman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanjay Chakrabarty, et al. The case is styled as Jeffrey Edelman, Michael Popper, and others similarly situated v. Sanjay Chakrabarty, Albert Aboody, Ankul Agarwal, Anupam Pahuja, Bharat Rao, Mukesh Sharda, Nallathur S. Balasubramanian, Sudip Banerjee, Case No. 2024-0587 (Del. Chancery Ct., May 31, 2024). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Sanjay Chakrabarty has served as CEO of Prudential Vietnam Finance Company and as Chief Commercial Officer at Prudential Vietnam.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq. Phone: (302) 654-1888 Fax: (302) 654-2067 - and - Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq. Ashby & Geddes PO Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 654-1888 Email: sjenkins@ashbygeddes.com SAP MO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lemus Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Ismelda Calderon Lemus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sap Mo LLC d/b/a Subway, Case No. 4:24-cv-00491 (E.D. Tex., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its Subway restaurant in Texas from 2007 to February 2024. Paid on a salary basis, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was allegedly not paid at the federally mandated overtime premium rate. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as an FLSA collective action, seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and forward. The Plaintiff and the collective action members seek all damages available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. Sap Mo LLC is engaged in the restaurant business and is headquartered in Plano, TX. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Chevere Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as D.C. Wilfredo Chevere, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons and entities v. ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2024CH00000080 was removed from the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 30, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04457 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Labor. ScanSTAT -- https://www.scanstat.com/ -- provides expert document management systems and services for healthcare, legal, government and insurance industries.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SELENE FINANCE: Class Certification Discovery Due June 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Argona et al v. Selene Finance, LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order granting agreed motion to extend class-discovery and deadline to respond to plaintiff's motion to certify class. -- The deadline to complete class certification June 14, 2024 discovery is reset to: -- The Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs' June 28, 2024 motion to certify class on or before: The nature of suit states consumer credit. Selene operates as a residential mortgage company.[CC] SHAHID INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Liz Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Shahid, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03952 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Shahid for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website https://www.thejacketmaker.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, empty links that contain no text, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Shahid's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. GreatPlains Finance, LLC offers a wide range of products including jackets, vests, coats, boots, sneakers, loafers, bags, wallets, belts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com SINGTEL OPTUS: Full Court Rejects Class Action Privilege Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Maher, Andrew Burns, Thomas Franchina of Allens report that the Full Federal Court has denied Optus' request to overturn a previous Federal Court ruling. The initial ruling dismissed Optus' claim of legal privilege over a factual investigation report commissioned in response to a data breach, on the basis that Optus had not established that the report was prepared for the dominant purpose of legal advice. In refusing the appeal, the Full Court emphasised it will not be enough simply to establish that the report had a legal purpose. Rather, where there is evidence to suggest the report had other, non-legal purposes, it must also be established that the legal purpose is the dominant one. The decision reinforces the challenges with claiming privilege over factual investigation reports where they have multiple legal and non-legal purposes, including regulatory compliance, audit and financial reporting, operational and/or risk-mitigation purposes. Those challenges are most significant where different parts of an organisation are not aligned on the report's purpose or purposes and, in particular, which of them is dominant. In supporting a privilege claim, it may not be enough for the inhouse legal team, for example, to maintain that the legal purpose is dominant when there is other evidence of other meaningful, non-legal purposes for the report. In this Insight, we examine the Full Court's reasoning, assess its implications and offer practical guidance on how to maximise the prospects of a privilege claim being sustained. Key takeaways -- The Full Federal Court has refused Optus' appeal of Justice Beach's decision that a factual investigation report prepared by Deloitte concerning a major data breach was not privileged. -- This decision highlights the challenges associated with claiming privilege over investigation reports that are necessarily prepared for multiple purposes, such as legal, regulatory compliance, audit and financial reporting, operational and/or risk-mitigation purposes. -- It is not sufficient to establish that a report has a legal purpose -- it must be established that the legal purpose was the dominant -- Whether privilege applies is highly factually dependent. To assess purpose, courts will examine all of the circumstances in which an investigation report was prepared. For such a report to be privileged, consistent business-wide alignment is required. -- The decision also shows that detailed evidence about the dominance of the legal purpose over all other purposes will be required to support a privilege claim over an investigation report, particularly where there is also evidence of other purposes (which will often be the case). -- Practical steps include ensuring key decision-makers turn their minds to, and agree on, the purpose(s) of the investigation, and taking steps to optimise the prospects of a privilege claim being sustained. Background: the data breach and the independent review In September 2022, Optus publicly disclosed a large data breach impacting up to 10 million customers, sparking significant public and regulatory attention. The company appointed Deloitte to conduct an independent review of the incident, as recommended by Optus' CEO and supported by the Singtel board. Deloitte's review began in early October 2022 to investigate the circumstances of the cyberattack, evaluate Optus' management of cyber risk, and assess the incident response. Upon completion, Deloitte provided its report to Optus' general counsel. A class action was commenced against Optus over the data breach. The applicants sought access to Deloitte's report, arguing it was not prepared for the dominant purpose of legal advice or litigation and, in any event, any privilege had been waived through public statements. Optus contested these claims, asserting the report was privileged. In November 2023, Justice Beach found Optus had not established that the dominant purpose of the report was a legal one. Grounds of appeal and the decision Optus appealed the rejection of their privilege claims on numerous grounds. They can be grouped as follows: -- that the court had given insufficient weight to the evidence of its general counsel and company secretary, in circumstances where that evidence was uncontradicted and not subject to cross-examination; and -- that the court had assessed the purpose of the report at the wrong point in time. Optus contended that the court should have assessed the relevant purpose at the date the report was provided to Optus by Deloitte, rather than around the time Deloitte had been engaged. The Full Court rejected both contentions. The Full Court decided that Justice Beach had clearly accepted that Optus' legal team's purpose for the report was a legal one, but as Optus' internal documents also disclosed the existence of non-legal purposes for the report, the general counsel's evidence was insufficient to support the privilege claim. The evidence should have also 'attempt[ed] to contextualise the non-legal purposes as opposed to the legal purpose'.2 Evidence from the CEO would have helped to establish which of these purposes, if any, was dominant.3 Optus had, therefore, not satisfied its burden of establishing that the legal purpose was the dominant one.4As to when the dominant purpose will be assessed, the Full Court held that 'the proper date upon which to assess purpose will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.'5 On the facts of this case, the Full Court decided that the time between public statements announcing the appointment of Deloitte to conduct a review of the cyberattack and the board resolution approving that appointment was the appropriate time within which to assess the report's purpose.6 In that context, proper regard was had to evidence of the report's commissioning and evidence of subsequent events, such as the formal letter of engagement of Deloitte; Optus' public statements about the report; and the board resolution to procure it.7 Implications While this decision does not create new law, it does highlight the significant challenges in supporting privilege claims over investigation reports and root cause analyses that follow material events that adversely affect organisations, like cyber incidents. Those challenges arise from the multiple purposes, including legal, regulatory compliance, audit and financial reporting, operational and/or risk-mitigation purposes, for these processes. It further underscores the importance of whole-of-business alignment on the purpose or purposes of a factual investigation report. If its dominant purpose (effectively, that which justifies its creation) is for legal advice, this must be consistently understood and embraced across the business. Evidence from both the time of commissioning and later events may be relevant. Where there is evidence of multiple purposes (which will often be the case for these types of reports), the burden will rest with the party claiming privilege to establish a dominant legal purpose. This will likely require evidence, not only from the inhouse legal team, but also from senior decision-makers, particularly where there is contemporaneous evidence (whether public statements or internal records) that focus on non-legal purposes. Practical steps to take We reiterate that when an investigation commences, it will be important to ensure that: -- key decision-makers (which may include the board, management and lawyers) actively turn their minds to, and agree on, the purpose(s) of an investigation or root-cause analysis; -- where those people agree that the work is being done for a dominant legal purpose, take steps to optimise the prospects of a privilege claim being sustained, including by ensuring that: -- terms of reference and engagement are formulated and implemented promptly, and that they clearly identify that the work is for the sole or, at least, dominant purpose of assisting with legal advice or litigation; -- inhouse or external lawyers have responsibility and oversight of the review or investigation, and that they ensure they receive the information they need to provide the legal advice or litigation assistance the company seeks from them; and -- there are clear directions for maintaining confidentiality, and for how and when issues will be escalated and reported internally (including carefully considering any public statements about the investigation). [GN] SKULLCANDY INC: Sorensen Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Matthew Sorensen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKULLCANDY INC., a Utah Corporation, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10800 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04553. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a single cause of action against Defendant for alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wynter L. Deagle, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 12275 El Camino Real, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858.720.8900 Facsimile: 858.509.3691 Email: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Whipple Seeks to Certify Savings Plan Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS WHIPPLE, on behalf of the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, himself, and all others Similarly Situated, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04583-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying all claims in this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). The Plaintiff moves that the class be defined as follows: "All persons who were participants in, or beneficiaries of, the Southeastern Freight Lines Savings Plan at any time between January 1, 2017, and the present. The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint him as the representative of this class. Finally, Plaintiff moves the Court to appoint the law firms of Morgan and Morgan P.A., McKay Law, LLC, and Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and appoint Laruen H. Carroway, Esq. of the law firm Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as local class counsel. Southeastern is a privately owned American less than truckload trucking company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9EmhzG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren Heath Carroway, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 1544 Fording Island Road, Suite A Hilton Head, SC Telephone: (854) 222-6067 E-mail: Lcarroway@forthepeople.com MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael C. Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us SOUTHERN COMPANY: Tobias Sues Over Engineers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------- GEOFFREY TOBIAS, individually and for others similarly situated v. THE SOUTHERN COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-02244-AT (N.D. Ga., May 22, 2024) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Tobias worked for Southern as an Initial Test Program Engineer at Southern's Plant Vogtle facility from approximately March 2022 to September 2023. He and the Straight Time Workers worked for Southern as hourly-paid workers and regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Southern does not pay Tobias and the Straight Time Workers overtime wages, says the suit. The Southern Company provides electricity for millions of homes and businesses in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200 Post Office Box 67007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SPACE COAST: Denies Access to Financial Products, Leyva Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RENDON LEYVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-14168-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2024) challenges Space Coast Credit Union's policy of denying full access to financial products to applicants who are not United States citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. Plaintiff Leyva and members of the Class seek to represent are unable to access Defendant's financial services without unequal conditions imposed upon them based on their alienage. Plaintiff Rendon brings this case against Space Coast for unlawful discrimination on the basis of alienage in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as codified at 42 U.S. Code Section 1981. Headquartered in Melbourne, FL, Space Coast is a state chartered credit union offers consumers a range of financial and credit products, including savings and checking accounts, credit cards, personal loans, auto loans, home equity loans, and mortgages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Symphorien-Saavedra, Esq. SYMPHORIEN-SAAVEDRA LAW P.A. 189 S. Orange Avenue, Ste. 1800 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 802-1717 E-mail: frank@symphorienlaw.com - and - Andrea Senteno, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 1016 16th Street NW, Ste. 100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 293-2828 E-mail: asenteno@maldef.org - and - Thomas Saenz, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring St., 11th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org SPEAKER SHOP: Liz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Speaker Shop, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03953 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Shahid for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website https://www.speakershop.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, empty links that contain no text, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Speaker Shop's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Speaker Shop, Inc. offers a wide range of products including TVs, speakers, headphones, receivers and amplifiers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com SPOTIFY INC: Faces Class Action Over Car Thing Deactivation ----------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Spotify faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges Car Thing users will be left with "nothing more than a paperweight" when the streaming giant rolls out a mandatory firmware update for the in-vehicle dashboard device later this year. The 33-page Spotify Car Thing lawsuit contends that consumers would not have bought the in-car streaming device, which reportedly retails for between $50 and $100, had they known Spotify would stop supporting the product altogether a mere three years after it was released for sale. According to the complaint, Spotify announced that it will cut off support for the Car Thing as of December 9, 2024, ending its functionality through a forced firmware update that the case stresses "will result in the device becoming obsolete." The filing accuses Spotify of misrepresenting that the Car Thing was "[d]esigned for your drive" and that the device ". . . has one job and does it awesomely," as well as failing to mention its intention to prematurely end the product's usefulness. Indeed, the proposed class action lawsuit argues that the Spotify Car Thing was useful for "a commercially unreasonable period of time." According to the lawsuit, Spotify has made it clear that it will not refund or replace the Car Thing and instead recommended that users "reset your Car Thing to factory settings and safely dispos[e] of your device." "Had Plaintiffs and other members of the Class known that Spotify manufactured the Car Thing with the ability to brick the product at any point after its introduction to the marketplace and in Spotify's total discretion, they would not have bought a Car Thing, or would have paid substantially less for them," the suit summarizes. The "best thing to happen in cars since the stereo?" Announced in 2019, the Spotify Car Thing was described in advertising as a game-changing device that could mount to any vehicle's air vent. The Car Thing, powered via USB-C through a car's 12V socket with an adapter, features a nearly four-inch display and large rotating dial in the upper right-hand corner, with one small button on the bottom and five other buttons on the top of the device to allow users to navigate Spotify. Spotify touted the Car Thing as the "perfect companion to the car commute," among other claims, and as "putting Spotify front and center of the driving experience," the filing says. After an initial, invite-only release period, Spotify began to sell the Car Thing for roughly $90, with the claim that "no matter the year or model of your vehicle, we feel everyone should have a superior listening experience." The lawsuit stresses that consumers relied on Spotify's representations in deciding whether to shell out almost $100 for the Car Thing, believing that the device would work as long as they maintained a Spotify Premium account. On May 23 of this year, however, Spotify announced it would discontinue its Car Thing, leaving consumers with a device that no longer works, the case relays. "Thousands of purchasers of the Car Thing have and will experience the forced obsolescence of their purchase," the complaint reads. "Complaints by consumers posted on the Internet demonstrate that the dissatisfaction is widespread." Who can join the Spotify Car Thing lawsuit? How do I sign up for the class action? When a new class action lawsuit is filed, there's typically nothing you need to do to join or sign up for the case. It's usually only in the event of a class action settlement that the people affected by the lawsuit, called class members, need to act. This usually involves filling out and filing a claim form online or by mail. The Spotify Car Thing class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States and its territories who bought a Spotify Car Thing before May 23, 2024. For now, Spotify Car Thing users should sit tight and stay informed by signing up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Winter Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Winter, v. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03088-RA-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension to Aug. 30, 2024 for the Defendants to oppose Lead Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification, and an extension to Oct. 16, 2024 for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further support of the Motion. Pursuant to the Court's Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, entered on Sept. 8, 2023, the Defendants' current deadline to oppose the Motion for Class Certification is June 10, 2024, and Plaintiffs' current deadline to reply in further support of the Motion is August 19, 2024. The Defendants request that the Court grant the requested extensions to allow additional time for document discovery in advance of the briefing deadlines. The Stronghold Defendants have conferred with counsel for Lead Plaintiff Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, as well as counsel for B. Riley Securities Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, LLC, D.A. Davidson & Co., Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Northland Securities, Inc., and Ricardo R. A. Larroude. Stronghold is a crypto asset mining company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cHGZcw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Crough, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 Facsimile: (212) 237-0100 E-mail: jcrough@velaw.com mantonelli@velaw.com TEN BRIDGES: Taie Appeals Rulings to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs MARY TAIE, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Orders dated November 28, 2023, February 12, 2024, and April 18, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled MARY TAIE, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEN BRIDGES LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00526-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The suit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the Western District of Washington on April 19, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against Defendants Ten Bridges, Demean Heald (Ten Bridges' sole member), and his marital community, asserting per se violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act and challenging the validity of an instrument quitclaiming to Ten Bridges their rights in a foreclosed property. They allege that Ten Bridges operates by finding surplus foreclosure proceeds on deposit in court registries, wildly underpaying the property owners (or their heirs) to acquire their rights to the proceeds, and then claiming the proceeds for a massive profit. The Court dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against Heald and his marital community. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Ten Bridges again moved to dismiss those claims. Rather than respond to that motion, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"). The Court stayed the motion to dismiss pending resolution of the motion to amend. The proposed SAC alleges that, after a state court ruled that Ten Bridges' chief business practice was unlawful, Heald and Ten Bridges entered a transaction in which Heald replaced Ten Bridges' assets with a debt owed to Heald. The proposed SAC asks the Court to unwind the transaction under Washington's Uniform Voidable Transfer Act, Chapter 19.40, RCW and to hold Heald liable for Ten Bridges' acts under an alter ego theory. On November 28, 2023, the Court entered an Order wherein the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment were GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court ORDERED as follows: Plaintiffs' Washington's Consumer Protection Act claims against Ten Bridges and Demian Heald are DISMISSED. The Plaintiffs' conversion claims are DISMISSED. The Plaintiffs' Uniform Voidable Transactions Act claims are DISMISSED. The Plaintiffs' "alter ego" liability claims are DISMISSED. The Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claims are DISMISSED. The Court FOUND that the contracts violated RCW 63.29.350 and were therefore void at their inception. The Court further FOUND that the repeal of RCW 63.29.350 did not validate the contracts between Plaintiffs and Ten Bridges LLC. Summary judgment was GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. On January 11, 2024, the Court denied Defendants' motion for reconsideration through an Order signed by Judge John C. Coughenour. On February 12, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs' MOTION to Certify Class. The Plaintiffs were awarded judgment against Defendant in the amount of $135,224.51. That judgment represents the aggregate sum of the foreclosure sale surplus proceeds. On April 18, as reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Coughenour of the Western District of Washington, Seattle: (a) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to amend judgment for prejudgment interest; (b) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' cross-motion to amend judgment; and (c) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of costs. The appellate case is captioned as Taie, et al. v. Ten Bridges LLC, et al., Case No. 24-3243,, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 21, 2024.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY TAIE and WILLIAM GROVES, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of similarly situated persons, are represented by: Guy William Beckett, Esq. BERRY & BECKETT LAW, PLLP 1708 Bellevue Avenue Seattle, WA 98122-2017 THOMAS VILSACK: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Suspended ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROVOST, et al., v. VILSACK, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00920 (D.C.C., Filed March 29, 2024), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Kelly entered an order that the Plaintiffs' deadline pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(b) for filing a motion for class certification is suspended pending further order of the Court following an initial scheduling conference, and in any event shall be at least 60 days after the close of briefing on any motion to dismiss. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Massive Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Stefanie Schappert of Cybernews reports that a California law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation Entertainment on behalf of hundreds of millions of consumers caught up in a massive data breach of the live music ticketing giant, claimed by hackers earlier this week. The suit accuses the American conglomerate of failing to "properly secure and safeguard" its customer's personally identifiable information (PII) through "adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols." Clarkson Law Firm, a public interest law firm headquartered in Malibu, filed the lawsuit on Wednesday in California's central US district court on behalf of two plaintiffs named in the case, Cynthia Ryan and Rosalia Garcia. "The sweeping scope of impacted consumers makes this one of the largest data breaches in history," Ryan Clarkson, Managing Partner of Clarkson Law Firm said in a statement sent to Cybernews. The class action is also not the only legal woes facing the conglomerate. Last week, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed its own landmark lawsuit against the Live Nation-Ticketmaster duo for creating and operating a powerful market monopoly in violation of American antitrust laws. Clarkson said the Ticketmaster data breach "also underscores the importance of the government's attempt to break up the company's monopoly." "When companies face no competition, they're disincentivized to deliver the best product or service -- in this case, by failing to protect highly sensitive data in its possession that is now for sale on the dark web. Consumers are rightfully outraged," Clarkson said. The class action lawsuit The lawsuit, demanding a trial by jury, states that Ticketmaster not only failed to prevent unauthorized access to customer data but also failed to follow required protocols regarding the encryption of that data. Lawyers claim that Ticketmaster's negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and implied contract, and violation of California's Consumer Privacy Act (among other charges) caused the plaintiffs to suffer ascertainable losses, out-of-pocket expenses, lost time, emotional distress, and face "imminent risk of future harm" due to the exposure of their private information. The class action states that had Live Nation-Ticketmaster "properly monitored" their computer networks, the companies "would have discovered the intrusion sooner or prevented it altogether." Also worth noting is that the DoJ lawsuit also mentions Ticketmaster's history of cybersecurity incidents and breaches, which further highlights "the inherent risk associated with industry consolidation," said Nick Tausek, Lead Security Automation Architect at Swimlane. "In this current era of frenzied corporate acquisitions, it is important to not only view monopolies as dangerous to consumers' wallets, but also dangerous from a cybersecurity. perspective…vulnerabilities to data breaches are heightened, amplifying the need for proactive security measures and response protocols," Tausek said. "Hopefully, this increased cyber risk will be taken into account in anti-monopoly actions taken by various governments around the world," he said. Cybernews has reached out to Ticketmaster, which has not made any public statement regarding the breach or the class action lawsuit. Behind the Ticketmaster breach On Wednesday, the threat group known as Shiny Hunters posted a large swath of the purported stolen data on a reboot of the hacker marketplace BreachForums. Screenshots provided in the post show a 1.3TB data set of 15 file folders. After being examined by several security researchers, including by our own research team here at Cybernews, the consensus concludes that the compromised data of 560 million Ticketmaster customers appears to be legitimate. Sensitive information is said to include "full names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, ticket sales and event details, order information, and partial payment card data," which includes "the last four digits of card numbers, expiration dates, and even customer fraud details," the lawsuit stated. "While the absence of full credit card numbers in the stolen data offers some relief, the data published on the BreachForums website will likely be sold to cybercriminals who will use it to conduct targeted phishing scams against the individuals in the database," said Sally Vincent, Senior Threat Research Engineer at LogRhythm. According to the malware repository vx-underground -- which posted an update about the alleged breach on X Thursday -- the set contains information dating back to 2011 and possibly earlier. When scammers have access to personal information, they can and often use that data to create "highly convincing" targeted attacks, Vincent said, adding that "users should be cautious of unsolicited communications asking for further personal or financial information." Vx-underground also said it believes Shiny Hunters -- who is trying to auction off the leaked data for $500,000 to one buyer only -- is "acting as a proxy" for the real threat actors behind the breach. ShinyHunters backstory The ShinyHunters gang relaunched the BreachForums site last spring after its founder Pompompurin was busted by the cops in New York. The FBI arrest of the now 22-year-old former Breached chief Connor Brian Fitzpatrick created a sensational plot line that has played out on social media and kept security insiders riveted for the past year. In fact, the latest dance between BreachForums and the FBI took place only weeks ago, with agents seizing the site for the second time and allegedly taking its long-time administrator, known as Baphomet, into federal custody. Days later, ShineyHunters posted a PGP-signed message stating that Baphomet's arrest led "to the seizure of pretty much all of our infrastructure by the FBI," but the criminal outfit still managed to resurrect the site for a 3rd time, and here we are. ShinyHunters is known for carrying out multiple high-profile data breaches costing their victims tens of millions of dollars, including Microsoft, Mashable, and Pluto TV. In spring 2022, the mysterious threat actors successfully breached AT&T and T-Mobile within days of each other, exfiltrating the personal data of a combined 110 million users. Meantime, Ticketmaster was also busy making headlines in 2022 after canceling all ticket sales to the Taylor Swift Era tour due to automated bots scooping up more than 2.5 million tickets in pre-sale, leaving 3.5 million fans in the lurch. The move angered the pop star and her fans and triggered the DoJ investigation and its following antitrust lawsuit, which was also backed by dozens of US lawmakers. Ticketmaster, considered the largest ticketing agent in the US, is a wholly owned subsidiary that merged with Live Nation in 2010 to form Live Nation Entertainment. With more than 265 concert venues in North America under its control, including more than 60 of the top 100 amphitheaters in the US, the conglomerate is considered the "largest live entertainment company in the world." [GN] TICKETMASTER LLC: Getman Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ AMY GETMAN and STEPHANIE EVANGELISTA on behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly situated v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04580 (C.D. Cal., May 31, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to implement adequate data security measures, resulting in a data breach. This action arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack by infamous cybercrime group known as ShinyHunters, which gained access to Defendants' computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise of Plaintiffs' and Class members' highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII). Plaintiffs have active accounts with Defendants which they use to purchase event tickets online. Plaintiffs are deeply concerned about the data breach as their private information is now readily available for cybercriminals to sell, buy, and exchange, on the dark web. Allegedly, the data breach was mainly caused by Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect and safeguard consumers' private information against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Class Members, bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs and Class Members also seek damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief (including significant improvements to Defendants' data security protocols and employee training practices), reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. Ticketmaster, LLC is a ticketing company based in Hollywood, CA and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment, INC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. Edward Ciolko, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC One World Trade Center 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (516) 457-9571 E-mail: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Ryan and Garcia Sue Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA RYAN and ROSALIA GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TICKETMASTER, LLC., and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04482 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similar situated individuals' personal identifiable information. The class action arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack against Ticketmaster that enabled a third party to access Defendants' computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive private information. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Class Members, bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. Headquartered in Beverly Hills, CA, Ticketmaster, LLC. Operates as a ticket distribution company and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Live Nation Entertainment. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Barrientos Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- GERI BARRIENTOS; and MICHAEL FOERST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03282 (S.D. Cal., May 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendants sells defective 2019-2023 Toyota RAV4 and MY 2019-2023 Toyota Corolla vehicles (hereafter, the "Class Vehicles"). The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose to the Plaintiffs and Class Members that the Class Vehicles contain defectively designed and manufactured coolant bypass valves ("the Defect") that prematurely fail. When the Defect manifests, coolant leaks out of the closed-loop coolant system. This adversely impacts the ability of the coolant system to properly regulate the temperature of the engine, and can lead to engine overheating, stalling, increased emissions and catastrophic engine failure. In addition, the leaking coolant can leak into the surrounding engine components, including the electrical system, and damage those components. The leaking coolant can also corrode the sensor on the coolant bypass valve, which causes it to remain stuck in the "open" or "closed" position and thus impedes its ability to properly direct coolant throughout the engine, thereby impeding the ability of the engine to operate within the appropriate parameters. As a result of the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices, owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in value, says the suit. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retail and sells new and used automotive. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers, hybrids, hybrid cars, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alison M. Bernal, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590 Email: alison@nshmlaw.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com TRIONFO SOLUTIONS: Killian Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Killian, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TRIONFO SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04547 (N.D. Ill., May 31, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding individuals' sensitive personal data. Between December 4, 2023, and December 6, 2023, Defendant Trionfo experienced a data breach incident ("Security Breach"). Types of personal data exposed likely included names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, and Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information" or "PII"). The Defendant's security failures enabled the hackers to steal the Private Information of Plaintiff and members of the Class. These failures put Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information and interests at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk and, additionally, caused costs and expenses to Plaintiff and Class members associated with time spent and the loss of productivity from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate, emotional grief associated with constant mitigation of personal banking and credit accounts, mitigate and deal with the actual and future consequences of the Security Breach, including, as appropriate, reviewing records for fraudulent charges, reissuing payment cards, purchasing credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, imposition of withdrawal and purchase limits on compromised accounts, initiating and monitoring credit freezes, and the stress, nuisance and annoyance of dealing with all issues resulting from the Security Breach. The Security Breach was caused and enabled by Defendant's violation of their obligations to abide by best practices and industry standards concerning the security of consumers' records and Private Information. The Defendant failed to comply with security standards and allowed their customers' Private Information to be compromised by cutting corners on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the Security Breach that occurred, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for an employer that shared her PII with Trionfo. The Defendant provides insurance benefits administration to numerous corporate clients throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com TRUBRIDGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rhine Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLA RHINE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUBRIDGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00936 (N.D. Ohio, May 29, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff between November 2013 and September 2023 as a health insurance sales agent at its North Canton call center. Plaintiff frequently worked over 40 hours per week. However, Defendant failed to count off-the-clock time she spent in starting and logging in to computer systems, applications, and phone system. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. Among other things, the Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees before clocking in each day, says the suit. Based in North Canton, OH, TruBridge, Inc. owns and operates a call center that offers insurance services to its customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com UBER INC: Disabled Riders Sue Over Wheelchair Accommodation ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Lofaro and Kevin Gould of CTV News Montreal report that a Montreal man who has a physical disability is the lead plaintiff in an application for a class action lawsuit against Uber. Laurent Morisette says he's repeatedly booked trips with Uber, only to be turned down because the vehicles that show up can't accommodate him or his wheelchair. Saro Turner, a lawyer from the Slater Vecchio law firm in Montreal, filed the legal challenge in Superior Court on May 28. He said it's frustrating because Uber, which has operated in Quebec since 2014, says it has a service that's supposed to specifically cater to people with physical disabilities. "The class action vehicle we hope will provide access to justice for compensation but more importantly perhaps is behaviour modification. That's what we want. We want, ultimately, Uber to remedy this by incentivizing drivers who they control to provide service in a meaningful way," Turner said in an interview. "That's really what it's all about -- providing services so that the disabled community can, moving forward, participate more fully and equally in the aspects of life be it cultural, political, economic, etc." Uber notes riders can notify drivers of special accommodations via text and chat before pick-up. "Our technology and the transportation provided by drivers has transformed mobility for many people," said Jonathan Hamel, Uber's Quebec public affairs manager. "We're continuously innovating to support Quebecers' easy movement around their communities." He adds that the company has "complied with and respected" Quebec's Act respecting remunerated passenger transportation by automobile, which was adopted in the province in 2019. "To support options for riders with disabilities, Uber has worked to make our app accessible and provide in-app tools to help make the experience as seamless and accommodating as possible," he said, quoting the company's approach to accessibility. "Uber additionally maintains a policy which states the expectation that drivers are to accommodate riders with disabilities in accordance with the law." The class action, which alleged breaches of the Quebec Charter and the province's Consumer Protection Act, must be authorized by a judge before it can proceed. The lawsuit seeks compensation to "all individuals who have been denied access to Uber Ride Services due to physical disabilities in Quebec from October 29, 2014, to the date that this action is certified as a class proceeding." [GN] UNIO HEALTH CARE: Hanne Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Emilie Hanne, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIO HEALTH CARE PARTNERS, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00019901-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00961-BEN-DDL. The Plaintiffs Complaint asserts the following ten causes of action on behalf of himself and all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from four years (plus the additional 178-day statutory tolling period under Emergency Rule 9) prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification: Minimum Wage Violations, Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages, Meal Period Violations, Rest Period Violations, Failure to Pay All Paid Sick Leave Wages, Untimely Payment of Wages, Wage Statement Violations, Waiting Time Penalties, Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses, and Violation of California Business & Professions Code all in violation of various California Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Seth M. Goldstein, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.909.7775 Fax: 424.465.6630 Email: sgoldstein@constangy.com UNITED PARCELS: Moyle Suit Removed to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Moyle, Roy Welsh, Carlos Palaguachi, Robert Santiago, Ahmed Radwan, Tyler Lilly, Travis Steele, and Warren Payne, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCELS SERVICE, INC., Case No. 503187/2024 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03880. For the purposes of this Notice of Removal only, UPS analyzes the allegations in the underlying Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") as though they are true; however, UPS denies such allegations, including, but not limited to, any and all allegations of illegal conduct and wrongdoing.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Leslie A. Lajewski, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 Phone: (973) 656-1600 Email: leslie.lajewski@ogletree.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Franklin Cardiology Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against UnitedHealth Group, Incorporated. The case is styled as Franklin Cardiology, P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group, Incorporated, Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealthcare, Inc., Optum, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00327-GNS (D. Minn., May 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. United Healthcare Services, Inc. -- https://www.uhc.com/ -- was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health services to subscribers or members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Joseph Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Koulouras Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------------- SPERO KOULOURAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; Defendants, Case No. 3:24-CV-00936-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 29, 2024) alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff brings this class action to address UnitedHealth's practice of improperly denying claims for non-invasive ventilators for the care of patients with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis under UnitedHealth plans. Relying on its policy, "Durable Medical Equipment, Orthotics, Medical Supplies, and Repairs/Replacements" MP.009.29, UnitedHealth has categorically denied claims for noninvasive ventilators as not medically necessary without regard to a member's medical condition, need, or qualification for the device, says the Plaintiff. UnitedHealth Group is a health insurance and services company headquartered in Minnetonka, MN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Glovsky, Esq. Julia Zalba Seltz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT C. GLOVSKY, APC 343 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (626) 243-5598 Facsimile: (866) 243-2243 Website: www.scottglovsky.com E-mail: sglovsky@scottglovskylaw.com jseltz@scottglovskylaw.com - and - Christian Garris, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN GARRIS 633 West Fifth Street, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 624-2900 Facsimile: (213) 624-2901 E-mail: cjg@christiangarris.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Moffitt Hospital Sues Over Unprotected Info --------------------------------------------------------------- H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE HOSPITAL, INC., Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, OPTUM, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00661 (M.D. Tenn., May 29, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendants' failure to timely and adequately process and pay the amounts owed for their medical services due to cyberattack. Plaintiff Moffitt Hospital seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms caused and will continue to cause the Moffitt Hospitals and other similarly situated persons and/ or entities in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on February 21, 2024, in which cybercriminals, known as the BlackCat/ALPHV ransomware group, infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network and accessed highly sensitive information which was being kept unprotected. Headquartered in Hopkins, MN, UnitedHealth Group Inc. is a health care and well-being company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aubrey Harwell, Esq. Trey Harwell, Esq. Charles Barrett, Esq. Simon N. Levitsky, Esq. Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: aharwell@nealharwell.com trey@nealharwell.com cbarrett@nealharwell.com slevitsky@nealharwell.com dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan S. Thompson, Esq. Christian Hudson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com chudson@cuneolaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North P.O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com donbarrettpa@gmail.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Richard R. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Rd., Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net USAA CASUALTY: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- George Christian, writing for Texas Civil Justice League, reports that in a case in which TCJL participated as amicus curiae, the Texas Supreme Court has reversed a Dallas Court of Appeals decision affirming a trial court order certifying a class action against USAA under Rule 42, TRCP. The case, USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. Sunny Letot, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated (No. 22-0238; May 24, 2024), arose from a 2009 collision between Letot and USAA's insured that, according to USAA's adjuster, damaged Letot's 1983 Mercedes. USAA's adjuster determined that while the value of the vehicle was $2728, the cost of repair came to $8859. USAA declared the vehicle a "total loss" and tendered checks totaling $2738.02 to Letot. Letot objected to the vehicle valuation. Her lawyer returned the checks and demanded that USAA pay $10,700 in damages. USAA declined to do so. As its standard practice when totaling a vehicle, within 3 days of tendering payment of Letot's claim, USAA filed an owner retained report with TXDOT pursuant to 43 TAC Sec. 217.83(c), which prescribes a procedure by which an owner of a salvage or non-repairable vehicle retains the vehicle. Under Sec. 217.83(a), a vehicle is deemed salvage or non-repairable if the cost of repairs exceeds the market value of the vehicle. Market value is determined from publications commonly recognized by the automotive or insurance industries to establish values, or, if the entity determining the value is an insurance company, by any other procedure recognized by the insurance industry, including market surveys, that is applied in a uniform manner. Similarly, cost of repairs must be determined using a manual of repair costs or other instrument generally recognized and used in the automotive repair industry, or an estimate of actual cost of the repair parts and labor costs by using hourly rate and time allocations that are reasonable and commonly assessed in the repair industry in the community in which the repairs are performed. From what we can tell from the recital of facts in the opinion, USAA followed this procedure, declared the vehicle unsalvageable, and sent Letot a check. Since USAA did not acquire ownership or possession of the vehicle (in which case USAA would have to apply for a non-repairable or salvage vehicle title), it filed an owner retained report as required by Sec. 217.83(c). This subsection provides that when an insurance company pays a claim on a non-repairable or salvage vehicle and does not acquire ownership, the company shall submit to TXDOT before the 31ST day after the date of the payment of the claim, a report stating that the company has paid a claim and has not acquired ownership or possession of the vehicle. When it receives the report, TXDOT places a notation on the vehicle record to prevent registration and transfer of ownership prior to the issuance of a salvage or non-repairable vehicle title. Letot did not dispute that USAA followed the statutory procedure but objected to the process itself. Letot filed suit seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging that USAA (1) failed to notify her that it filed owner retained reports subsequent to paying claims for non-repairable or salvage vehicles, (2) failed to notify her of the consequences that an owner retained report would have on her title, (3) improperly filed an owner retained report before Letot had accepted payment of the claim, and (4) illegally converted her title in the vehicle by filing the report. Letot further sought class certification for all similarly situated vehicle owners for which USAA had filed owner retained reports within 3 days of paying claims. The trial court certified the class on the basis of a common issue of whether "USAA's uniform practice of filing Owner Retained Reports prior to paying claims improperly meant it improperly and intentionally asserted rights in Letot's property." USAA appealed the certification order. The court of appeals affirmed, but nowhere in the court of appeals' opinion was there any discussion of what was "improper" about USAA's conduct in the first place or what "rights in Letot's property" USAA asserted. The court of appeals focused solely on the propriety of USAA's "uniform practice" of filing owner retained reports on totaled vehicles as justifying class certification, brushing aside USAA's argument that at best each conversion claim should be tried individually because in every case except Letot's nobody has ever complained about it. USAA sought review. In an opinion by Justice Young, SCOTX reversed. First, the Court held that because Letot, the class representative, did not have standing to bring her own claim for injunctive relief, she could not assert that claim on behalf of the class. Here Letot failed to show that her past experience in colliding with a USAA insured "increase[d] the likelihood of her being hit again by a USAA insured, much less in the imminent future." But even if she could have shown that a whole crowd of USAA insureds was lining up to run into her next vintage vehicle (she had already cannibalized the vehicle at issue in this case and sold it for parts) the minute she took it out of the garage, "she would [still] have to show that the damage would lead USAA to deem that car a total loss rather than one that could be repaired." Not only that, but "USAA would then have to authorize payment to Letot" and "within three days of approving that payment, USAA would have to alert TxDOT about her car's salvage status via a Report." In short, since there was no way Letot could show that the same thing was going to keep happening to her if USAA were allowed to keep using the statutory process it uses for everyone, she could not satisfy the requirements for an injunction. The trial court erred in certifying the class as to that claim. The Court then turned to the class claim for damages. First, the Court determined that Letot had standing to pursue her damages claim as an individual, though it expressed no opinion as to the merits of her claim (we wondered about that as well). Turning to whether class certification was proper, however, the Court said no because Letot failed to carry her burden to show that the proposed class satisfied Rule 42's predominance and typicality requirements. As to predominance, the question was "whether common or individual issues will be the object of most of the efforts of the litigants and the courts" (citation omitted). Here the Court easily determined that "[i]ndividual issues would almost surely overwhelm the common issue of whether USAA exercised dominion and control over class members' property when it filed Reports concerning their vehicles." The standing issues alone, the Court noted, would overwhelm the common issues since many, if not most, of the putative class members either didn't object to the statutory process USAA followed or wanted it to go faster than it did. With such a "clear and substantial variation . . . among the class regarding standing," there is no chance of satisfying the predominance requirement from the outset. As to typicality, the Court ruled that Letot's claim for damages "does not have the same essential characteristics as the claims of other class members. She is at least atypical, and perhaps even unique, in having objected to the claims process or having declined to cash the checks that USAA had sent." The Court further observed that USAA requested a correction from TxDOT in her individual case, something no other class members even asked for. "Such a bespoke fact pattern may make Letot a compelling plaintiff in her own case," Justice Young wrote. "But her unique characteristics cannot reasonably be the basis for a jury to award actual or exemplary damages to make other findings on behalf of an entire class, whose experiences differ starkly from Letot's." SCOTX remanded to the trial court to try Letot's individual claim. As we have stated previously in our reporting on this case and in the amicus brief we filed with SCOTX, we have never fully understood what is actually going on in this litigation. This case has been going on since 2009. For those of you who are math challenged, that's 15 years. The total damages in dispute in Letot's case are (or at least were) around $8,000. The vehicle no longer exists, having been cannibalized for parts by other owners of old Mercedes. The plaintiff's most recent amended petition -- the seventh of a series -- added a claim for injunctive relief, which had never been requested before and which SCOTX had to dump first. Obviously, if Letot had prevailed and class certification had held up, there would have been a fat settlement and an attorney's fee windfall at the end of the line. But what were the real chances of that ever happening? Letot is the only claimant who complained about USAA's process, which, as we have droned on about ad nauseam, the Legislature prescribed and USAA followed in her case and everybody else's. Letot's allegations about the process -- that USAA filed an owner's retained report and sent her checks too fast and without telling her first -- simply don't point to anything USAA did wrong. In any event, this thing dragging on for 15 years is simply beyond the pale. [GN] VANGUARD CHESTER: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: VANGUARD CHESTER FUNDS LITIGATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-00955-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a class action; 2. defining the Class as: "All investors in the Vanguard Target Retirement series of mutual funds that required a minimum investment of $1,000 prior to February 2022 ("Investor Funds"), who: (1) reside in the United States; (2) held shares of the Investor Funds in taxable accounts, or in tax-advantaged accounts where capital gains were not reinvested within those accounts; and (3) received capital gains distributions from the Investor Funds in 2021." Included within the Class are three Subclasses: (1) Class members who reside in Colorado; (2) Class members who reside in Massachusetts; and (3) Class members who reside in Illinois. Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are: (i) Defendants, the present and former officers and directors of Defendants at all relevant times, members of their immediate families, and any entity in which any Defendant, or any person excluded under this subsection (i), has or had a majority ownership interest at any time; (ii) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (iii) counsel of record for the parties in this Action; (iv) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action; (v) persons who properly execute and submit a timely request for exclusion from the Class; and (vi) the legal representatives, successors, and assignees of any such excluded persons. 3. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Class; 4. appointing Interim Class Counsel The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel; and 5. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ERo3Zp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Jonathan Stern, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jstern@rosenlegal.com - and - Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 - and - Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 - and - Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kevin W. Fay, Esq. GOLOMB, SPIRT, GRUNFELD, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 - and - Timothy Brown, Esq. THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 Facsimile: (516) 344-6204 VINFAST AUTO LTD: Qian Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meng Qian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VINFAST AUTO LTD., LE THI THU THUY, PHAM NHAT VUONG, DAVID MANSFIELD, ANH THI LAN NGUYEN, NGAN WAN SING WINSTON, LING CHUNG YEE ROY, PHAM NGUYEN ANH THU, and NGUYEN THI VAN TRINH, Case No. 1:24-cv-03956 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2024), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired VinFast securities: pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the merger ("Merger") consummated on August 14, 2023 by and among the Company, Black Spade, and Nuevo Tech Limited, a Cayman Islands exempted company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"); and/or between August 15, 2023 and April 17 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On May 12, 2023, VinFast announced that it had entered into a business combination with Black Spade, which purportedly "runs a global portfolio consisting of a wide spectrum of cross-border investments, and consistently seeks to add new investment projects and opportunities to its portfolio." On June 15, 2023, VinFast filed a registration statement ("Registration Statement") on Form F-4 with the SEC in connection with the Merger, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on July 28, 2023. Also on July 28, 2023, the Company filed a joint prospectus and proxy statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents") on Form 424B3 with the SEC in connection with the Merger, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. On August 14, 2023, the Company consummated the Merger whereby, among other things, Merger Sub merged with and into Black Spade, with Black Spade surviving the transaction as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. On August 15, 2023, the Company's ordinary shares and warrants began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbols "VFS" and "VFSWW," respectively. On October 15, 2023, Bloomberg published an article entitled "VinFast to Expand Into Southeast Asia, Raise More Capital." The article discussed the Company's plans to aggressively move into Southeast Asian markets, starting with Indonesia, and revealed that, according to VinFast's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Le Thi Thu Thuy ("Le"), the Company would need to raise "a lot of capital" in order to fuel its global expansion plans and would "rely on financial support from parent company Vingroup JSC and its founder Pham Nhat Vuong in the next 18 months." On this news, VinFast's ordinary share price fell $1.45 per share, or 18.17%, to close at $6.53 per share on October 16, 2023. Then, on January 18, 2024, VinFast issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter 2023 ("Q4 2023") financial results. The press release revealed that the Company delivered a total of 34,855 EVs in 2023, falling well short of its annual deliveries target of 40,000-50,000 units. In response, several market analysts commented on the Company's disappointing announcement. On this news, VinFast's ordinary share price fell $0.13 per share, or 2.25%, to close at $5.64 per share on January 18, 2024, representing a total decline of 84.78% from the Company's first post-Merger closing stock price of $37.06 per share on August 15, 2023 (the "Initial Closing Price"). On April 17, 2024, VinFast published a press release announcing its first quarter 2024 ("Q1 2024") financial results. The press release stated that the Company delivered 9,689 EVs in the first quarter of 2024 despite setting a target of 100,000 EVs to be delivered in 2024. On this news, VinFast's ordinary share price dropped $0.35, or approximately 11%, to close at $2.72 on April 17, 2024. This represents a total decline of 92% from the Company's Initial Closing Price. As of the time this Complaint was filed, VinFast's ordinary shares were trading significantly below their Initial Closing Price and continue to trade below their initial value fromthe Merger, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired VinFast securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Merger, and/or during the Class Period. VinFast describes itself as "an innovative, full-scale mobility platform focused primarily on designing and manufacturing premium EVs ("electric vehicles"), e-scooters, and e-buses."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 301-3335 Fax: (877) 590-0483 Email: brian@schallfirm.com WEBHELP AMERICAS: Johnson Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- SASHA JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBHELP AMERICAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22043-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2024) arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs hundreds of Agents who work remotely from their homes, providing customer, sales, and order support to Defendant's customers throughout the United States. Despite Defendant's ability to track the amount of time Plaintiff and other Agents spent in connection with the required pre-, mid-, and post-shift processes, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other Agents for the off-the-clock work they performed each shift, thus breaching its contracts with its Agents and being unjustly enriched, says the suit. Headquartered in Miami, FL, Webhelp Americas LLC is a business process outsourcing and consultancy company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com - and - Bradley W. Butcher, Esq. BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES 6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2 Fort Meyers, FL 33912 Telephone: (239) 322-1615 E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com [*] Harvard Law Released 2023 Global Class Action Annual Report --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Cirami of Broadridge presents the 2023 Global Class Action Annual Report. Industry trends: Noteworthy class action developments in 2023 Securities class actions before the Supreme Court. Despite being the cornerstone of securities litigation worldwide, securities class action law in the United States is continually evolving. Lately, the Supreme Court has taken on cases of substantial significance in shaping securities law and securities litigation. Since 2017, the Court has reviewed no fewer than five cases that have had a profound impact on the evolution of securities class action litigation. In 2023, the Court clarified, in Slack Techs. LLC v. Pirani, that unregistered shares obtained as part of a direct listing cannot support a claim under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, which requires the plaintiff to have purchased "such security" pursuant to a materially misleading registration statement. Further, on September 29, 2023, the Court granted certiorari in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.1, to address a circuit split related to whether disclosures required by Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K, which requires companies to disclose trends or uncertainties likely to have a material impact on a company's financial position, could give rise to securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The resolution of this issue may potentially lead to an expansion of securities liability concerning Item 303 disclosure claims in the future. Emphasis on ESG investing and shareholder activism through securities class and collective actions. 2023 was in line with previous years with an increase in shareholder class and collective actions with broader ESG-related allegations. This level of ESG-related allegations mirrors the growing interest in ESG investing among Broadridge clients and the broader market, which is projected to reach $30 trillion by 2030 as highlighted in the Broadridge ESG and Sustainable Investment Outlook report.[1] This trend was further fueled by a change in investor behavior, with institutional and other investors increasingly viewing class and collective actions rooted in ESG principles as an effective mechanism to uphold and implement their ESG policies and objectives. This year, shareholder derivative lawsuits, especially those related to breaches of fiduciary duty within the diversity and inclusion context, have gained recognition as an effective means of implementing and upholding ESG reforms. Additionally, the SEC is currently in the process of proposing rule changes mandating specific climate-related disclosures in registration and periodic filings. Historically, the introduction of new disclosure or reporting requirements has been associated with a rise in litigation. Expansion of opt-in jurisdictions and the increasing prevalence of collective investor actions. Each year we bring attention to new legislation or additional regions that permit collective actions. Significant developments in 2023 included: -- In March 2023, revisions to the Rules of the Supreme Court and Consolidated Practice Directions in Western Australia paved the way for a new class action framework for the region, pursuant to legislation that was enacted in September 2022, under the Civil Procedure (Representative Proceedings) Act 2022. This Act introduced a class action framework that closely mirrors the already existing regime in the Federal Court of Australia, a jurisdiction globally recognized for its prominence in securities class actions. This development is noteworthy because it offers investors in Australian securities an additional venue for initiating legal proceedings, by filing cases in the Supreme Court. -- The New Zealand parliament accepted, in principle, the recommendations put forth by the Law Commission concerning R147 Ko nga Hunga Take Whaipanga me nga Putea Tautiringa (Class Actions and Litigation Funding). The report, which was released in 2022, comprised 121 suggestions for establishing a statutory framework for class actions. The government is presently engaged in the process of working towards implementation, though it recently cautioned that the process will be time-consuming due to the complex nature of the issues involved and the requisite legislative reform. -- In April 2022, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) released its enforcement report, covering the 18-month period concluding in December 2021. Within this report, MAS emphasized three primary areas of concentration for the upcoming reporting period (ending December 2023). Importantly, one key issue to be addressed in 2023 included exploring possibilities for improving investors' options to seek redress for losses arising from securities market misconduct. -- On December 26, 2023, China's first securities class action settlement under the country's new opt-out regime, the Special Representative Action (Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Representative Actions Arising from Securities Disputes (eff. July 31, 2020), was announced. The 280 million yuan ($39.5 million USD) settlement will benefit a class of over 7,000 investors and was initiated on April 28, 2023. To date, two special representative actions have been initiated, the first of which reached a 2.46 billion yuan ($385 million USD) verdict in 2021. -- The deadline for EU member states to enact or modify their collective redress systems in accordance with the EU Directive on Representative Actions was December 25, 2022, with an implementation deadline of June 25, 2023. As a result, various EU countries are currently in different stages of implementing these changes. Two notable revisions in jurisdictions that have historically provided strong investor recoveries are: -- The Netherlands, which was the first EU member state to implement the Directive and first introduced its legislative proposal back in February 2022 which was adopted by the Dutch parliament in June 2023, and then entered into force on September 1, 2023. The law supplements and amends its existing plaintiff-friendly collective redress regime (the "WAMCA"). -- The German parliament, or Bundestag, implemented the Directive on July 7, 2023. The new law will result in a reorganization of the German collective redress system via the Verbraucherrechtedurchsetzungsgesetz, or Consumer Rights Enforcement Act (VDuG). As part of its implementation, the Bundestag also renewed the Capital Markets Model Case Act (KapMuG), originally set to expire at the end of 2023. KapMuG, which, until the passing of VDuG, was Germany's only procedure for shareholder asset recovery in a class-wide opt-in basis in Germany, is now on its third extension. For now, the VDuG and KapMuG will coexist, and it is possible that issuers may face class-wide claims under both VDuG and KapMuG concurrently. Increased participation in opt-in litigation. In 2023, Europe saw the filing of more than 100 collective redress claims; even more were initiated globally. Notably, within Europe, securities-related collective redress actions constituted more than 30% of all filings. Year after year we continue to see increased investor interest in opt-in litigation worldwide. In fact, some of the most common questions that the Broadridge team fields from institutional investors relate to participation in these matters. Some of these questions relate to ESG, as investors tie ESG and class actions together more frequently, and the rest can be attributed to increased jurisdictions, thus increasing global awareness and the amount of money at stake. International competition claims reach new highs. Competition claims are being filed at record pace in multiple jurisdictions around the world. For instance, the U.K. Competition Tribunal (CAT) currently has more than 20 collective actions pending, with more than 10 at the collective proceedings order (CPO) stage. The CPO procedure is significant as it allows certain claims to be pursued on an opt-out basis for U.K.-domiciled entities (while non-U.K. domiciled entities will still need to opt-in). One such claim revolves around allegations that six of the world's largest banking groups were involved in cartels related to foreign exchange manipulation and spot trading. Initially, the £2.7 billion claim was limited by the CAT to opt-in claims only. However, on July 25, 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned the CAT's decision, and the claim may now proceed on an opt-out basis (for U.K.- domiciled entities). This marks the first collective action primarily representing businesses that has been granted court approval to proceed as an opt-out action. SPAC and cryptocurrency-related securities litigation continues to predominate federal filings. Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) and cryptocurrency-related securities class action filings continue to lead federal court dockets in the U.S. for the third year in a row. Altogether, 16 SPAC cases and 12 cryptocurrency-related cases were filed in 2023. Although we expect cryptocurrency-related securities class actions (and SEC enforcement actions) will continue to be filed at, record pace both within and outside the U.S., SPAC cases are expected to cool during the next several years. This projection stems from the significant decline in SPAC IPOs, dropping by 95% from their peak in 2021 (613) to 2023 (22) -- the lowest IPO count since 2016. The picture is even more clear considering most SPAC claims fall under the Securities Act, which requires claims to be brought within three years of the offering. That said, even though SPAC IPOs have fallen out of vogue, hundreds of SPACs are already underway, searching for acquisition partners. Whether the SPAC closes or goes through a de-SPAC transaction, we can expect litigation to persist -- at least for now. Fewer IPOs yield fewer Securities Act claims. The number of initial public offerings (IPOs) has continued to decline significantly since reaching an all-time high in 2021, when there were 1,035 IPOs. By contrast, there were only 154 IPOs in 2023. Given the substantial decrease in both traditional IPOs and SPAC IPOs in 2022 and 2023 and considering the truncated statutes of repose and limitations for Securities Act claims, we have observed and anticipate a decrease in the proportion of lawsuits filed against newly public companies relative to the overall docket. Cybersecurity-related securities class actions are on the rise. Jurisdictions worldwide are introducing new disclosure requirements and regulations related to cybersecurity, thereby exposing issuers to potential claims associated with cybersecurity risk management, governance and incidents. For example, on July 26, 2023, the U.S. SEC adopted rules (SEC Final Rule Release No. 33-11216, Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure) requiring public companies that are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to disclose any cybersecurity incident deemed material on the newly created Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. The disclosure must include key details regarding the incident's nature, extent, timing and its material impact (or reasonably anticipated material impact) on the registrant. Comparable disclosure obligations were also extended to foreign private issuers by the Commission. According to IBM's Cost of Data Breach 2022 report, 83% of organizations surveyed faced multiple data breaches in 2022. During the past decade, breaches have surged by 600%, costing the U.S. economy trillions of dollars annually. Now, there is a new wave of cybersecurity-related securities litigation on the horizon, one contingent upon how issuers implement these increased disclosure requirements. In fact, cybersecurity-related class actions were the second-highest ranked area of future concern for class actions reported by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP in their 2024 Annual Litigation Trends Survey, which surveys more than 430 general counsel and in-house litigation leaders in the U.S. and Canada.[2] 2023 United States banking crisis in court. In 2023, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) included four banks on its list of failed banks, and a fifth underwent voluntary liquidation. Notably, two of these banks had substantial exposure to cryptocurrency. The downfall of each of these banks had a ripple effect across the industry, impacting the stock prices of banks globally. Investors followed suit investigating deficiencies, particularly in relation to claims of diversification, a key factor in several of the bank failures. To date, nine securities class actions have been filed in the wake of the crisis. Broker-dealers shift in service. Broker-dealers have been key to providing notification of potential securities class actions to their retail wealth customers over the past few decades. During the last few years, there has been a significant shift in the industry to provide holistic claim-filing and asset recovery services to their clientele. Considering the historically minimal participation rates of retail investors in securities class action filings, offering this service has allowed broker-dealers to maintain client asset recoveries in their ecosystem, alleviate the filing-related burden on their advisors and operations teams, and deliver optimal customer experience. Custodians to provide comprehensive support. With the increasing complexities in securities class action recovery opportunities, especially opt-in and antitrust cases, many custodians are reevaluating their current class actions programs and have taken steps to provide comprehensive global class action asset recovery support. Although some custodians offer coverage for opt-out filings, many are recognizing the growing need for support in complex cases, and the administrative challenges associated with meeting this need internally. Concern over short-seller claw back exposure. Recent settlement programs out of the Delaware Chancery Court have introduced potential complexities for Deposit Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) participants in merger cases for clients that had open short positions at the time of a merger that later resulted in additional merger consideration being distributed as part of a settlement program directly paid by DTCC. Broadridge has been addressing inquiries and collaborating with its clients to gain a deeper understanding of this matter and to minimize any associated risks. Each of these trends informs the services we provide to our clients. Broadridge continues to expand its suite of services around notification, portfolio monitoring, and class action asset recovery on behalf of asset owners and managers as the industry grows and becomes more complex. Endnotes Broadridge Financial Services, ESG and Sustainable Investment Outlook, www.broadridge.com/white-paper/asset-management/esg-and-sustainable-investment-outlook (last visited Nov. 27, 2023). Norton Rose Fulbright, 2024 Annual Litigation Trends Survey, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/4097006f/2024-annual-litigation-trends-survey (last visited Jan. 22, 2024). [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***