/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240619.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 19, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 123
Headlines
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Weinberg Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
AETNA HEALTH: McWilliams Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
ALBERTA: Staff Sues Over Provincial Employment Standards
AMAZON INC: Faces GBP1-Bil. Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Misuse
AMAZON INC: Settles Overtime Class Action Lawsuit for $3 Mil.
AMAZON.COM: Court Vacates Class Cert Briefing Sched in Frame-Wilson
AMERICAN STRATEGIC: M&A Probes Bellevue Capital's Tender Offer
APPLE INC: Mirage Wine Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
AT&T INC: Sands Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
BLUETRITON BRANDS: Maul Suit Removed to C.D. California
BNSF RAILWAY: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California
BREW CULTURE: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
CBE GROUP INC: Silberstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CENCORA INC: Borne Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
CENCORA INC: Turner Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CHRISTIE'S INC: Maroulis Sues Over Exposure of Personal Data
CIGNA GROUP: Whittemore Sues Over Non-Coverage of Obesity Drug
CMB EXPORT: Fang Suit Transferred to E.D. California
CNET NETWORKS: Skaff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COMPLETE BUSINESS: Fleetwood Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
COMPLETE BUSINESS: Savett Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Link Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
CS ENERGY: Farmers Sue Over Electricity Price Inflation
DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Sulla Suit Removed to C.D. California
DECISIONPOINT SYSTEMS: M&A Investigates Merger With Barcoding
DELUXE MEDIA INC: Richter Suit Removed to C.D. California
EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Bailey Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
ELF COSMETICS: Judge Certifies Biometric Data Class Action Lawsuit
ENWORTH FIN: Judge Allows Expert to Testify in ERISA Class Action
EVANSTON, IL: Faces Class Action Over Reparations Program
EVOLUTION GROUP: Pinedo Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
FACEGYM USA: Karim Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FASTLY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 23
FLUSHING MEAT: Betances Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FTX GROUP: Asks Judge to Stop Class Action Suits Over FTX Collapse
GENERAL MOTORS: Brunet Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
GENERAL MOTORS: Dinardo Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GOOGLE LLC: Court Certifies Online Advertising Class Action Suit
HETERO DRUGS: Reaches Prelim Settlement Over Valsartan Lawsuits
HUMANA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
INSPIRIT DEVELOPMENT: GMF 157 Files Appeal
KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Theft-Prone Vehicles
LEIDOS INC: Callis Suit Removed to S.D. California
LEOSOURCE INSURANCE: Kujawa Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Torres Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Shippley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Mahmud-Bey Suit Removed to C.D. California
MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MASTERCORP INC: Settles Unfair Labor Practices Class Action Suit
NAPLETON ENTERPRISES: Little Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NATALI INC: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sunday Ticket Class Action Underway
NELNET INC: Walsh Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York
NELNET SERVICING: Stevens Files FCRA Suit in S.D. West Virginia
NORDSTROM INC: Diaz Suit Removed to N.D. California
NOW OPTICS: Marous Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
P&M LAW: Appeals Injunction Ruling in Mey TCPA Suit to 4th Cir.
PACIFIC GAS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PERFECT FIT: Saguin Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
PF CALI PAYROLL: Strandholt Suit Removed to C.D. California
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Devine Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Hassell Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
PRESTIGE PROTECTIVE: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROSE HILLS MORTUARY: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California
ROSE HILLS: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
RW SUPPLY AND DESIGN: Arjmandi Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
SKY ZONE: Settles Biometrics Class Action for $1.05 Million
T.E.S. CONTRACT: Court Denies "Misclassification" Class Action
TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Money-Laundering Program
TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
UNION CARBIDE: Sommerville Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 4th Cir
UNITED STATES: Settlement for Iraqi Detainees Suit Gets Initial Nod
UNIVERSITY OF COLUMBIA: Settles Campus Safety Class Action Lawsuit
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Students Sue Over Breach of Contract
VANCOUVER WHITECAPS: Fans Sues Over SuperStar Players' No Show
YOUNG LIVING: Settles "Therapeutic" Essential Oil Class Action
[*] 2023 Sees Rise in ADA Compliance and Data Breach Class Actions
[*] Federal Court Rules Committee Reviews Class Action Rules
[*] GT Presents 2024 1st Quarter U.S. Class Action Decisions
*********
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Weinberg Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL D. WEINBERG is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled Jeffry Brown, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acutus Medical, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00206-RSH-VET, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this lawsuit against the Defendants for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Sept. 16, 2022, Plaintiff Jeffry Brown filed an amended
complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim on Nov. 12, 2022.
On Sept. 27, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Robert S. Huie.
On Oct. 27, 2023, Plaintiff Paul Weinberg filed a second amended
complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss again for failure
to state a claim on Dec. 1, 2023.
On Mar. 26, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
On Apr. 29, 2024, the case was dismissed and closed.
The appellate case is captioned Weinberg v. Acutus Medical, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 24-3537, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 5, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 10,
2024;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 15, 2024; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 15, 2024. [BN]
AETNA HEALTH: McWilliams Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Francis McWilliams, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE OF IOWA,
INC. and THE RAWLINGS COMPANY LLC, Case No. 24STCV10571 was removed
from the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on June 10,
2024, and assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00193-SHL-WPK.
The Plaintiff claims that he was "a former medical malpractice the
Plaintiff who had a policy of medical insurance issued by Aetna
through which Aetna paid medical bills for the injuries suffered by
Plaintiff as a result of that medical malpractice." The Plaintiff
further claims, "Thereafter, Aetna and Rawlings (its subrogation
collection agent), extorted the Plaintiff, claiming it had a
subrogation lien for the full amount of medical bills Aetna paid
and forcing the Plaintiff to pay Defendants before Aetna and
Rawlings would release an alleged lien.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Keith P. Duffy, Esq.
NYEMASTER GOODE, PC
700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone: 515-283-3100
Facsimile: 515-283-8045
Email: cksweeney@nyemaster.com
kduffy@nyemaster.com
ALBERTA: Staff Sues Over Provincial Employment Standards
--------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Ekelund of CTVNewsEdmonton.ca reports that Alberta Health
Services is being sued by a group of staff that claim the agency
violated provincial employment standards for nearly a decade.
Clinical assistants (CAs) and clinical surgical assistants (CSAs)
in the province say AHS has been overworking and underpaying them
since 2013.
Clinical assistants, as defined by AHS, work with physicians to
provide "acute care coverage" in a variety of medical settings. For
CSA's, this includes surgical assistance and pre- and
post-operative care.
Kahane Law Office has filed a class action lawsuit against AHS on
behalf of hundreds of those workers.
The group is seeking $125 million in damages, claiming AHS violated
the Employee Standards Code regarding overtime payments, rest
periods and 12-hour work shift lengths.
"Since joining Alberta Health Services in 2017, I've routinely
worked shifts lasting up to 24 hours, including during weekends and
holidays," said Mena Salamh, a plaintiff in the suit. "What we are
seeking is proper compensation for the time we have already
worked."
The lawsuit claims AHS also failed to provide legislated breaks and
violated overtime pay rules.
According to the suit, AHS told CAs and SCAs between 2013 and 2022
that they were exempt from receiving overtime pay.
When that decision was reversed in 2022, Kahane Law said the group
was offered a retroactive lump-sum overtime payment. However that
payment only went back four months and included a cap on hours.
"As the largest employer in Alberta, Alberta Health Services must
know they continue to be in contravention of the law by denying
these hard-working medical professionals fair pay and a safe
working environment," said Ariel Breitman, lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.
An amended statement of claim was filed on April 26. As of
Wednesday, there were around 228 active class members.
CTV News Edmonton has reached out to AHS. [GN]
AMAZON INC: Faces GBP1-Bil. Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Misuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
yahoo!finance reports that e-commerce giant Amazon is facing a
class action lawsuit in the UK for the alleged misuse of retailer
data and manipulation of its Buy Box feature to benefit its
commercial operation.
The GBP1bn damages claim, the largest collective action ever
launched by UK retailers, has been initiated by the British
Independent Retailers Association (BIRA) at the Competition Appeal
Tribunal (CAT) in London.
The lawsuit accuses Amazon of illegally using data from UK
retailers and manipulating its Buy Box to prioritise its own
products since October 2015. This has reportedly boosted its
revenues and profits at the expense of the retailers.
The e-commerce retailer can allegedly use this data to decide if it
should introduce a new product segment depending on its earnings
and sales potential, how to set the price and the target
consumers.
The lawsuit claims that the retailers, many of whom are small
businesses, were unaware that Amazon was exploiting their data to
its benefit, despite paying a non-negotiable 30% commission on
every product sold on the platform.
BIRA is represented by international legal solutions provider
Willkie Farr & Gallagher (UK).
Its legal team, led by Willkie Farr partners Boris Bronfentrinker,
Elaine Whiteford and Michelle Clark, will submit more than 1,150
pages of documentation outlining their case against Amazon.
The team is supported by barristers Sarah Ford KC and Jason
Pobjoy.
In 2022, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched an
investigation into Amazon for allegedly abusing its dominant
position and unfairly benefiting its own retail business. Amazon's
access to sensitive third-party retailer data was a key concern for
the CMA, as it could influence product and pricing decisions.
BIRA CEO Andrew Goodacre said: "The British public has a strong
relationship with its local, independent retailers and ensuring
they are not put out of business by Amazon's illegal actions is a
key driving force behind this collective action.
"The filing of the claim today is the first step towards retailers
obtaining compensation for what Amazon has done. I am confident
that the CAT will authorise the claim to go forward, and I look
forward to the opportunity to present the case on behalf of UK
retailers. This is a watershed moment for UK retailers, but
especially for small independent retailers in this country."
In May 2023 a Reuters report revealed that a US Federal Trade
Commission lawsuit against Amazon regarding its Prime membership
programme will continue after a Seattle judge rejected Amazon's
attempt to dismiss the case.
"Amazon faces GBP1bn class action lawsuit over data misuse " was
originally created and published by Retail Insight Network, a
GlobalData owned brand. [GN]
AMAZON INC: Settles Overtime Class Action Lawsuit for $3 Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a $3 million Amazon settlement
returns unpaid overtime wages to California workers who received a
signing bonus.
The settlement benefits Amazon employees in California who received
a signing bonus and/or sign-on bonus in the same workweek they
worked overtime between July 22, 2017, and Nov. 7, 2023.
According to the wage and hour class action lawsuit, Amazon
violated California laws by underpaying overtime wages during the
same workweeks employees received a signing bonus. Plaintiffs in
the case argue their regular rate of pay should have been
calculated including this bonus.
Amazon is an online retailer with warehouses around the country.
Amazon hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $3 million
to resolve the wage and hour class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Amazon settlement, class members can receive
a cash payment based on the amount the company allegedly owes in
overtime wages. Exact payments will vary, though each class member
is expected to receive around $565.43.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was June 17, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 10, 2024.
No claim form is required to benefit from the Amazon settlement.
Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically
receive a settlement payment.
Who's Eligible
Amazon employees in California who received a signing bonus and/or
sign-on bonus in the same workweek they worked overtime between
July 22, 2017, and Nov. 7, 2023
Potential Award $565.43
Proof of Purchase N/A
Case Name
Kryzhanovskiy, et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01292-BAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California
Final Hearing 09/10/2024
Settlement Website SigningBonusSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Amazon.Com Services Settlement
c/o Atticus Administration
PO Box 64053
St. Paul, MN 55164
SigningBonusSettlement@atticusadmin.com
(888) 234-7088
Class Counsel
Robert J Wassermann
Jenny D Baysinger
MAYALL HURLEY PC
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207-8253
Phone: (209) 477-3833
Fax: (209) 473-4818
Defense Counsel
Bradley J Hamburger
Lauren M Blas
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 USA
Tel: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520 [GN]
AMAZON.COM: Court Vacates Class Cert Briefing Sched in Frame-Wilson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order
1. The deadlines contained in Docket No. 138 relating to
Plaintiffs' class certification motion are vacated; and
2. The Court will establish new class certification briefing
deadlines when it resolves Amazon's Motion for Coordinated
Discovery Schedule and Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for
Coordinated Discovery Schedule and Cross-Motion to Modify
Class
Certification Schedule and to Compel Scheduling of 30(b)(6)
Deposition.
Because both parties seek an extension of the class certification
briefing schedule but disagree about the length of the extension
the Court should grant, the parties therefore propose that the
Court vacate the existing class certification briefing schedule
pending the Court's resolution of Amazon's Motion and Plaintiffs'
Cross-Motion.
On May 6, 2024, Amazon filed a Motion for Coordinated Discovery
Schedule, which seeks a Court order extending the current class
certification briefing schedule.
On May 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Response to Motion for
Coordinated Discovery Schedule and Cross-Motion to Modify Class
Certification Schedule and to Compel Scheduling of 30(b)(6)
Deposition, which seeks a Court order extending the current class
certification briefing schedule.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UWKqLK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Daniel Backman, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
Daniel.Backman@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
AMERICAN STRATEGIC: M&A Probes Bellevue Capital's Tender Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating American Strategic Investment Company (NYSE:
NYC), relating to a tender offer from Bellevue Capital Partners,
LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Bellevue Capital Partners
offers to purchase American Strategic Investment stock in the
amount of $10.25 per share. The tender offer expires on July 5,
2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-strategic-investment-company/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
APPLE INC: Mirage Wine Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mirage Wine + Spirits, Inc. doing business as:
Mirage Wine & Spirits, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Visa Inc., Mastercard
Incorporated, Case No. 3:23-cv-03942 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 5,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04053-MKB-JAM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlin E. Keiper, Esq.
K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
Navy Thompson, Esq.
Ryan Marth, Esq.
Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 Lasalle Ave
2800 Lasalle Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 349-8500
Fax: (612) 339-4181
Email: ckeiper@robinskaplan.com
kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com
nthompson@robinskaplan.com
rmarth@robinskaplan.com
tundlin@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
Kate Lv, Esq.
Walter W. Noss, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, PC
707 Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 625-5621
Email: Cburke@KoreinTillery.com
klv@koreintillery.com
wnoss@koreintillery.com
- and -
Marc A Wallenstein, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY - CHICAGO
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 641-9750
Fax: (314) 241-3525
Email: mwallenstein@koreintillery.com
- and -
Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
SCOTT&SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192, Ste P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: (860) 537-5537
Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
- and -
Sean C. Russell, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP - CA
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 233-4565
Fax: (619) 233-0508
Email: srussell@scott-scott.com
- and -
Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
2800 La Salle Plaza
800 La Salle Ave
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 349-8289
Fax: (612) 339-4181
Email: spslaughter@rkmc.com
- and -
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC - ST. LOUIS
One U.S. Bank Plaza
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101-1625
Phone: (314) 241-4844
Fax: (314) 241-3525
Email: stillery@koreintillery.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Belinda S. Lee, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 391-0600
Email: belinda.lee@lw.com
- and -
Matthew Eisenstein, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave, Nw
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 942-6606
Fax: (202) 942-5999
Email: matthew.eisenstein@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Demian Ordway, Esq.
Michael S. Shuster, Esq.
HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 837-5156
Email: dordway@hsgllp.com
mshuster@hsgllp.com
- and -
Brette Tannenbaum, Esq.
Nina Mikhaylovna Kovalenko, Esq.
Gary Carney, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 373-3000
Email: btannenbaum@paulweiss.com
nkovalenko@paulweiss.com
gcarney@paulweiss.com
- and -
Donna Ioffredo, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (212) 223-7300
Email: dioffredo@paulweiss.com
AT&T INC: Sands Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rob Sands, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T INC., a foreign corporation doing
business in Washington State, Case No. 24-2-09591-8 SEA was removed
from the King County Superior Court of Washington, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
June 10, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00821.
The Plaintiff alleges five causes of action, including negligence
and breach of implied contract, arising from the same incident that
is the subject of the putative class actions already pending across
the country and consolidated in MDL proceedings. The Plaintiff
seeks to certify a class of "all individuals residing in Washington
whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach
disclosed by AT&T in March 2024."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104-4076
Phone: 206.332.1380
Fax: 206.624.7317
Email: avitruk@bakerlaw.com
BLUETRITON BRANDS: Maul Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Justin D. Maul, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC.; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2402319 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on June 7, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04813.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; and Violation of
Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Linda Claxton, Esq.
Daniel N. Rojas, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: linda.claxton@ogletree.com
daniel.rojas@ogletree.com
BNSF RAILWAY: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marcus T. Williams, an individual and all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. BNSF Railway; and
DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01494 was removed from
the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on June 3, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-04629.
The Plaintiff's Original Complaint asserted the following six
causes of action: disability discrimination; disability harassment;
retaliation for engaging in a protected activity; family and
medical leave discrimination and retaliation; wrongful termination;
and negligent infliction of emotional distress.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stacey F. Blank, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 800.715.1330
Email: sblank@littler.com
- and -
Sara Zimmerman, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949.705.3000
Fax: 949.724.1201
Email: szimmerman@littler.com
- and -
Edgar Sargsyan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.443.4300
Fax: 800.715.1330
Email: esargsyan@littler.com
BREW CULTURE: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brew Culture, LLC.
The case is styled as Gwendolyn Thompson, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Brew Culture, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00331-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss., June 6, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Brew Culture -- https://brewculture.com/ -- supplies hops, malt,
yeast, cleaning chemicals, brewing aids, hot deals, adjuncts,
merch, and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Stephens, Esq.
METHVIN TERRELL YANCEY STEPHENS & MILLER, PC
The Highland Building
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 939-0199
Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
CBE GROUP INC: Silberstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Mayer Silberstein, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., Case No.
7:24-cv-04224-NSR (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
CBE -- https://cbe-group.com/en/home/ -- is a dedicated global
management consultancy firm that is committed to delivering high
level services and creating sustainable value and smart
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
CENCORA INC: Borne Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Borne and Celia Skorupski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC., THE LASH GROUP,
LLC, BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, and BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB
PATIENT ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02418-CMR
(E.D. Pa., June 4, 2024), is brought arising out of the recent
targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party
criminals retrieved and exfiltrated the highly sensitive data of
Plaintiffs and hundreds of millions of Class Members, as a result
of Defendants' failure to reasonably and adequately secure this
highly-sensitive consumer data (the "Data Breach").
During the regular course of conducting their daily business,
Defendants acquire, collect, store, and transfer patients'
sensitive personal data, including personally identifying
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")
(collectively, "Private Information"). More specifically,
Defendants Cencora and Lash Group acquired Plaintiffs' and other
Class Members' Private Information through the patient support and
access programs they manage on behalf of BMS and other pharmacy or
pharmaceutical partners. Plaintiffs and Class Members are patients
who have no choice other than to provide their sensitive Private
Information to Defendants directly or indirectly if they wish to
receive medications or to access a pharmacy benefit program.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included at
least Plaintiffs' and Class Members' first name, last name,
address, date of birth, health diagnosis, and/or medications and
prescriptions. Despite their duties under the law to Plaintiffs and
Class Members to protect and safeguard their Private Information,
and the foreseeability of a data breach, Defendants failed to
implement reasonable and adequate data security measures, which
directly resulted in a Data Breach.
The Defendants owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiffs and Class
Members to implement reasonable and adequate security measures to
protect their Private Information. Yet, Defendants maintained and
shared the Private Information in a negligent and/or reckless
manner. In particular, Private Information was maintained on
computer systems in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks that
lacked, for example, multi-factor authentication to access. The
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information was compromised
due to Defendants' negligent and/or reckless acts and omissions and
Defendants' repeated failure to reasonably and adequately protect
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members face a
substantial risk of imminent harm relating to the exposure and
misuse of their Private Information. Plaintiffs and Class Members
have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this
risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation
expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private Information,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former or current patients.
Cencora is a leading pharmaceutical solutions organization which
provides "end-to-end pharmaceutical commercialization solutions"
and claims to "empower patient-centered care all over the
world."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 985-3270
Fax: (215) 985-3271
Email: jkenney@hausfeld.com
- and -
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 215-854-4060
Fax: 973-623-0858
Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
- and -
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: 973-623-3000
Fax: 973-623-0858
Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Mandy Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
Ashley Crooks, Esq.
HAUSFELD
33 Whitehall Street, Ste 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 357-1194
Fax: (212) 202-4322
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
acrooks@hausfeld.com
CENCORA INC: Turner Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cencora, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Barbara Turner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cencora, Inc., The Lash Group,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02416 (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
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:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
CHRISTIE'S INC: Maroulis Sues Over Exposure of Personal Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Kinsella, writing for artnet, reports that Just a few weeks
after its website was taken over by hackers in a major cyberattack
as auction season was kicking into high gear, Christie's is now the
target of a class action suit alleging negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York
deceptive trade practices act.
The lead plaintiff on the suit, which was filed June 3 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, is listed as
Efstathios Maroulis, of Dallas, Texas. As The Art Newspaper noted,
a person with the same name, based in Dallas, has the title of vice
president and general manager of dental analytics and patient
experience at a firm identified as Henry Schein One. Maroulis could
not immediately be reached for comment.
Attorneys for Maroulis and the other plaintiffs are based in Long
Island, New York, Washington, D.C., and Dallas, and did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to the complaint, Christie's failed to "properly secure
and safeguard sensitive information of its customers." The
plaintiffs said they entrusted their personal information to the
auction house "on the mutual understanding that defendant would
protect it against disclosure," only to have it "targeted,
compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach."
The personal information compromised in the breach included the
plaintiffs' "full names, genders, passport numbers, expiration
dates, dates of birth, birth places, MRZs, countries, and document
numbers," according to the complaint. MRZ refers to the "machine
readable zone" in a passport that encloses the document holder's
personal data.
The complaint alleged that the information compromised in the data
breach was "exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands
of those cyber-criminals who target" the information for its value
to identity thieves. As a result of the breach, the complaint
alleged, roughly 500,000 class action members have been exposed to
invasion of privacy, theft of information, and lost time and
opportunity costs connected to attempting to mitigate the potential
consequences of the breach.
RansomHub, a ransomware gang, has claimed responsibility for the
hack. In a post on May 27, it threatened to leak the auction
house's client data unless a ransom was paid in a week. As the
deadline neared, the hacker group put the data up for auction and
has since claimed to have sold the data.
The 56-page complaint goes into extensive detail about Christie's
responsibilities and failure to protect the personal data, and the
ongoing vulnerability that clients have going forward, specifically
a "heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft."
Asked for comment, a Christie's spokesperson said via email: "Since
the cyber security incident occurred, we have been actively
monitoring online activity for any mention of Christie's or our
data. As a result, we are aware that a cyber group has made a
statement, as yet unverified, claiming that data taken from a
limited part of our systems has been sold. We continue to have no
evidence that financial or transactional records or copies of
documents, signatures or photographs were taken. We have already
notified those clients whose personal identity information was
taken. We continue to comply with GDPR [General Protection Data
Regulation] and other relevant national and state regulations."
Christie's declined to comment on the RansomHub's bid to sell its
data.
Its statement continued: "We would like to thank our clients for
their continuing trust and support during this challenging time
and, again, we express our regret for any inconvenience caused."
[GN]
CIGNA GROUP: Whittemore Sues Over Non-Coverage of Obesity Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Wight and Kaitlyn Budion of Maine Public report that a Maine
woman has filed a class action lawsuit against insurance company
Cigna for failing to cover drugs that treat obesity.
Jamie Whittemore alleges that her doctor prescribed the drug
Zepbound to treat her obesity, but Cigna denied coverage, in
violation of the Affordable Care Act's anti-discrimination law.
The suit is the first of its kind in the country, said Jeffrey
Young, one of Whittemore's lawyers.
"So the basis of our suit is that our client has been discriminated
against on the basis of disability by the denial of the insurer to
provide coverage for obesity," Young said.
The lawsuit was filed by three law firms in Washington state,
Minnesota and Maine on behalf of a nationwide class of Cigna
enrollees diagnosed with obesity.
Cigna did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"Our essential claim here is that under the Affordable Care Act,
health insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of disability and
choose to cover one disability or provide some coverage but not
other coverage," Young said.
Whittemore has also filed a claim against her employer, the
University of Maine system, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Maine Human Rights Act, because her employer's
insurance plan with Cigna did not cover the treatment, although
other Cigna plans do cover the drugs. [GN]
CMB EXPORT: Fang Suit Transferred to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chen Fang, Yu Lin, a California resident on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CMB
Export Infrastructure Investment Group 48 LP, CMB Export LLC, NK
Immigration Services, LLC, Patrick Hogan, Noreen Hogan, Case No.
2:24-cv-04151 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on June 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01618-DJC-DB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Joshua Aaron Genzuk, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone: (909) 557-1250
Fax: (909) 557-1275
Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
jag@mccunewright.com
- and -
Chen Fang, Esq.
CHEN FANG LAW OFFICES
4845 Elmwood Avenue Apt B., Ste Apt B
Los Angeles, CA 90004
Phone: (661) 505-8766
Email: chen.fang.2011@lawmail.usc.edu
- and -
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI KUSEL
WECK
One Gateway Center Suite 1500
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 888-1203
Email: esk@mccunewright.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott S. Humphreys, Esq.
Alexandra Conboy, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 204-4400
Fax: (424) 204-4350
Email: humphreyss@ballardspahr.com
conboya@ballardspahr.com
CNET NETWORKS: Skaff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CNET NETWORKS, INC.
The case is styled as Richard Skaff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CNET NETWORKS, INC., Case No.
CGC24615227 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 4, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Torts."
CNET Networks Inc. provides media and marketing services. The
Company offers online information, tools, special reports, and
advice in buying technology and consumer electronics, as well as
provides reviews on camcorders, cell phones, digital cameras, and
laptops.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily A. Horne, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd. Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 925-300-4455
COMPLETE BUSINESS: Fleetwood Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fleetwood Services, LLC, Robert L. Fleetwood,
Pamela A. Fleetwood, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. doing
business as: Par Funding, PRIME TIME FUNDING, LLC, THE JOHN AND
JANE DOES, Case No. 2:18-cv-00268 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 7,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-80716-RLR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Complete Business Solutions Group --
https://complete-business-solutions.com/ -- generates returns
through investing in the factoring of receivables of small and
medium businesses.[BN]
COMPLETE BUSINESS: Savett Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott C. Savett, Sheryl L. Barnes, Samuel Hans,
Ronald Hopkins, Jerry Magaa, Seth Martindale, Andrew Molloy, Jay
Nagimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Amber Terrell,
Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
Capital One, N.A., Patrick Perger, Jr., was transferred from The
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on June 7,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-md-03111-DJN-LRV to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Complete Business Solutions Group --
https://complete-business-solutions.com/ -- generates returns
through investing in the factoring of receivables of small and
medium businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
Timothy Brennan, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Ave., 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 759-4600
Fax: (212) 486-2093
Email: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com
pblack@wolfpopper.com
tbrennan@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Matthew Bryce Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: (703) 665-9529
Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bryan Alan Fratkin, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 775-4352
Fax: (804) 698-2100
Email: bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
David Lewis Balser, Esq.
John C. Toro, Esq.
Mandi Goodman, Esq.
Robert Douglas Griest, Esq.
KING & SPALDING (GA-NA)
1180 Peachtree St NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Fax: (404) 572-5100
Email: dbalser@kslaw.com
jtoro@kslaw.com
myoungblood@kslaw.com
rgriest@kslaw.com
- and -
Isham Cason Hewgley, IV, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP (TX-NA)
1100 Louisiana St., Ste. 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 751-3200
Fax: (713) 751-3290
Email: chewgley@kslaw.com
- and -
Jamie Dycus, Esq.
KING & SPALDING (NY-NA)
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10036-4003
Phone: (212) 556-2100
Fax: (212) 556-2222
Email: jdycus@kslaw.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Link Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gustave Link, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Continental Aktiengesellschaft,
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Compagnie Generale Des
Etablissements, Michelin North America, Inc., Nokian Tyres plc,
Nokian Tyres Inc., Nokian Tyres U.S. Operations LLC, The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, Pirelli & C S.p.A., Pirelli Tire LLC,
Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Does 1-100,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00913 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on June 10, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55009-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Continental AG -- https://www.continental.com/en/ -- commonly known
as Continental or colloquially as Conti, is a German multinational
automotive parts manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER (MT PL)
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 388-7202
Fax: (843) 388-3194
The Defendants are represented by:
H. Sam Mabry, III, Esq.
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
PO Box 2048
Greenville, SC 29602
Phone: (864) 240-3200
Fax: (864) 240-3300
CS ENERGY: Farmers Sue Over Electricity Price Inflation
-------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Atfield of Brisbane Times reports that Queensland
electricity consumers, who have already had a $1300 boost to their
retail accounts, could be in for more relief -- if a class action
that started in Brisbane this week rules against two major
government-owned power generators.
The class action is being led by Leyburn-based husband-and-wife
farmers Nick and Ronnie Adamson, and litigated by law firm Piper
Alderman.
CS Energy and Stanwell are being accused of price-gouging between
2013 and 2019, by artificially inflating the wholesale price of
electricity sold to retailers, adding to the power prices paid by
Queensland consumers.
Both have strenuously denied the allegations and are defending them
in court.
In a joint statement, the Adamsons said electricity prices were
"ridiculously high" and could break a business.
"When we learnt that the system was being gamed to drive up those
prices, like spiking the price from $70 to $13,000, we felt like we
had to do something for everyone," they said.
"We are determined to see that all Queenslanders who copped
exorbitant power bills while the generators were gaming the system
get some compensation."
A 2018 Grattan Institute report identified instances of what it
claimed was generators "gaming" the system on January 12, 2017.
"In Queensland there were seven dispatch intervals at or near the
market price cap of $14,200 per megawatt hour, while most dispatch
intervals were around $100 per megawatt hour in Queensland and the
other NEM regions," the report finds.
Piper Alderman lawyer Greg Whyte said the class action sought
compensation for all Queensland consumers who "had to pay inflated
electricity prices while the gaming practices were in play".
"There was no justification for the dramatic price spikes in
wholesale power charged to power retailers in Queensland," he
said.
"Price spikes like this can--t be explained away by unexpected
demand, or by system faults which can occur.
"These price spikes were both contrived and massive, moving prices
from an average cost of, say $70, to the price ceiling of, say,
$13,000 in a five-minute period.
"The unacceptable practices slowed when the State Government
intervened by issuing a directive to Stanwell Corporation to
‘undertake strategies to place downward pressure on wholesale
prices -- in the words of the directive, but by then the damage had
been done."
In response to the class action, Stanwell has warned Queensland
taxpayers would bear the cost of its defence through a dividend
reduction.
"We are disappointed that international litigation funders and
their representatives have targeted us in this case, and
emphatically reject their claims," a Stanwell spokesperson said.
"Their allegations against us are false, misleading and clearly
opportunistic.
"We believe this action reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of
the Australian electricity market. We will continue to vigorously
defend against it in court, but we expect this will be a long and
costly process."
In a statement, CS Energy said the class action had been backed by
"litigation funders".
"We reject the claims being made and are strongly defending this
class action," CS Energy said.
"This has been, and will continue to be, a long and complex legal
process."
The matter, before Justice Sarah Derrington, was expected to last
about eight weeks in the Federal Court. [GN]
DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Sulla Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Joseph Sulla, an individual;
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v.
DAMCO DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation; MAERSK
WAREHOUSING & DISTRIBUTION SERVICES USA LLC, a foreign corporation,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV25887 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 6, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-04768.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserted claims for unlawful failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure
to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, failure to pay all
wages owed every pay period, failure to pay all wages upon
separation, violation of California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
and violation of California Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq.
Thomas F. Cochrane, Esq.
Nasim Khansari, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: DManthripragada@gibsondunn.com
TCochrane@gibsondunn.com
NKhansari@gibsondunn.com
DECISIONPOINT SYSTEMS: M&A Investigates Merger With Barcoding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
is investigating DecisionPoint Systems, Inc. (NYSE: DPSI), relating
to its proposed merger with Barcoding Holdings, LLC, a portfolio
company of Graham Partners. Under the terms of the agreement,
DecisionPoint stockholders will receive $10.22 per share in cash.
ACTION NEEDED: The shareholder vote will be taking place on July 1,
2024. Mr. Juan Monteverde is available to personally discuss this
case with you.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/decisionpoint-systems-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
Do you file class actions and go to Court?
When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders?
What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
DELUXE MEDIA INC: Richter Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stefan Richter, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. DELUXE MEDIA INC.; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09998 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 7, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-04835.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 11 causes of action on behalf of
himself and a purported class of similarly situated individuals:
minimum wage violations; failure to pay all overtime wages; meal
period violations; rest period violations; late wages during
employment; wage statement violations; untimely final wages;
failure to reimburse business expenses; unfair competition;
violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"); and
violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act ("ICRAA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Phone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: mbeilke@seyfarth.com
jtrankiem@seyfarth.com
EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Bailey Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EdFinancial Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Philip Bailey, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. EdFinancial Services, LLC, Case
No. 4:24-cv-00144-WMR (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
EdFinancial Services -- https://edfinancial.studentaid.gov/welcome
-- is a financial company which provides student loans servicing
for 15 of the top 100 lenders in the USA, including regional and
national banks, secondary markets, state agencies and other student
loan providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan Mark Sartell, Esq.
Francis & Mailman, P.C.
1600 Market St., Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-8600
Fax: (215) 940-8000
Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (404) 205-5029
Fax: (866) 800-1482
Email: js@wsjustice.com
ELF COSMETICS: Judge Certifies Biometric Data Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell of Global Cosmetic News reports that District
Judge Lashonda Hunt has ruled on the viability of a class action
lawsuit launched against Elf Cosmetics in the District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, which alleges
that the US beauty brand has violated the state's Biometric
Information Privacy Act via its Virtual Try-On tool.
THE DETAILS
Elf's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint in favor of
arbitration, or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim
has been granted in part and denied in part. The defendant's
attempt to compel arbitration was denied; count I may proceed along
with the plaintiff's request for heightened damages. However,
Counts II and III have been dismissed for lack of standing.
THE WHY?
The court found that, while the section 15(a) and (c) claims could
be dismissed without prejudice, the claim under section 15(b) and
claim for heightened damages would not be dismissed at this
junction as the plaintiff adequately pled that the defendant
collected, captured or otherwise obtained plaintiffs' face geometry
through its Virtual Try-On feature. [GN]
ENWORTH FIN: Judge Allows Expert to Testify in ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that a recent decision by Senior District Judge
Robert Payne on a Daubert motion in class action litigation against
a pension fund offers some helpful lessons on challenging expert
witnesses in the EDVA. Trauernicht v. Genworth Fin., Inc., Civil
Action No. 3:22-cv-532, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95739 (E.D.Va. May
29, 2024).
Background
In Trauernicht, the class representatives alleged that the
defendant had breached its fiduciary duties by retaining certain
target date funds in its pension plan portfolio despite those
funds' significant underperformance.
Plaintiffs retained Richard Marin as an expert witness to evaluate
the performance of the funds under the pension plan's investment
policy statement, to opine on appropriate monitoring of investments
under the plan's governing documents and industry standards and to
determine a replacement for the target date funds at issue.
Defendants moved to exclude Marin's testimony under Daubert and
Fed. R. Evid. 702, claiming that his analysis was not reliable, and
he did not apply his methodology in a reliable manner.
Takeaway One: The Bar for Expert Challenges Is Higher in a Bench
Trial
An overarching factor in the court's analysis was that Trauernicht
did not involve a jury trial. In a bench trial, the court noted,
the court's gatekeeping function under Rule 702 is less critical,
and a court may admit expert testimony subject to excluding it
later. In practice, it is much less common for courts to grant
Daubert motions in bench trials because it creates an issue for
appeal and potential reversal. In a bench trial, it is far simpler
for a trial court to simply admit expert testimony and then
evaluate its persuasiveness as the finder of fact. That approach
allows the parties to make their case while allowing the court to
assess the admissibility and reliability of the expert's testimony
on a full record.
Takeaway Two: It Is Difficult to Exclude an Expert Based on Lack of
Qualifications
The defendant in Trauernicht argued that Marin's experience was
insufficient because he had not worked in asset management since
2003. As Judge Payne pointed out, though, Marin had other relevant
experience, including teaching courses on pension fund management
at Cornell from 2007-2017 and writing a book on pension issues
relevant to the case. As a result, Judge Payne had no trouble
finding that he was qualified to testify as an expert, and the
defendant's arguments went only to the weight of his testimony, not
its admissibility.
Challenges to an expert's qualifications are rarely successful, and
that is particularly the case in high-stakes commercial litigation
where parties seek the best experts available. That an expert's
direct experience from employment in a particular industry was
years ago is seldom, if ever, sufficient for exclusion, especially
if the expert has continued to work in the field, by, for example,
teaching or even testifying as an expert.
Takeaway Three: Reliability Does Not Depend on Peer Review or
Publication
The defendant argued that Marin's methodology was not reliable
because it was not subject to peer review or publication, and he
could not cite to any authority or person who endorsed his
methodology.
Judge Payne, though, noted that the Daubert inquiry is flexible,
and a court has wide latitude to determine reliability. In the case
of testimony, such as Marin's, that is primarily experiential in
nature, the judge found, testability, peer review and error rates
may not necessarily apply.
Rather, the court may focus on whether an experiential expert's
methods are generally accepted and subject to the same level of
intellectual rigor of an expert in the field, outside of
litigation. The methodology Marin had used, Judge Payne found, had
been deemed reliable in other cases and recognized as "both a
common-sense and well established practice" in the field of
retirement investment advice.
The defendant also relied on testimony from its own expert that
Marin's methodology lacks general acceptability in the industry. A
dispute between two experts, however, is never sufficient for
exclusion. In this case, in fact, the argument backfired because
the defendant's expert testified that Marin's approach was both
reasonable and in conformity with the investment policy statement.
The takeaway here is that the lack of peer review and publication
is rarely a successful form of attack on an expert's testimony,
apart from highly specialized fields with a wealth of published
studies on the topic at issue. If an expert's approach is logically
consistent and considers the relevant evidence in an intellectually
rigorous fashion, it is likely to satisfy Rule 702.
Takeaway Four: Evidence of Reliability Can Come From Outside the
Expert's Report
The defendant argued that Marin himself did not cite in his report
the caselaw and articles supporting his methodology, and so the
plaintiffs should not be permitted to rely on them. EDVA judges are
often sticklers for limiting an expert to the information within
the four corners of the Rule 26 expert report, and Judge Payne
emphasized that he would do so with Marin's testimony. That did not
mean, though, that he could not consider case law and other
authorities bearing on the reliability of Marin's methodology.
Thus, the issue of admissibility under Daubert was separate from
what Marin could testify to based on his expert report.
Conclusion: Exclusion of Expert Testimony in the EDVA Is the
Exception
Trauernicht offers a good example of the approach among EDVA judges
to Daubert motions. The fundamental lesson from the case is that an
attack on an expert's methodology typically must include a showing
that the expert's analysis ignores relevant factors, relies on
assumptions for which there is no evidence or otherwise lacks
logical rigor. Without some basic missing proof of a necessary
element in an expert's analysis or a missing logical link in that
analysis, it is difficult to persuade an EDVA judge to exclude
expert testimony.
As Judge Payne noted, the Fourth Circuit has held that "rejection
of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule."
Particularly in a bench trial, Judge Payne held, the proper way to
test the correctness and thoroughness of an expert's opinions is
through cross-examination and rebuttal evidence. [GN]
EVANSTON, IL: Faces Class Action Over Reparations Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Soto, writing for wttw, reports that Evanston's
groundbreaking reparations program is now facing a legal
challenge.
The program is aimed at addressing housing discrimination and
segregation that took place in the northern suburb from 1919 to
1969.
The city's original plan was to distribute funds to eligible Black
households in the form of $25,000 payments for home repairs, down
payments or interest or late penalties owed to the city.
The measure has since expanded to include direct cash payments that
can be used at recipients' discretion.
But that program is now under fire as a class action lawsuit is
challenging the city's "use of race as an eligibility
requirement."
Read the lawsuit.
Christine Svenson, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs
in the lawsuit, said the reparations program violates the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled "that they are not in the business of remedying
societal discrimination."
Justin Hansford, a law professor at Howard University, said he
believes this interpretation of the 14th Amendment is not correct.
"The two mistakes in that thinking are No. 1, the mistake of
feeling that the 14th Amendment is asking that we blind ourselves
to reality and pretend that racism can be addressed through
colorblindness," Hansford said. "And I think that is not the
original intent of the 14th Amendment."
Hansford added the second mistake is thinking these programs are
not addressing specific harms in a narrow way.
Svenson argued the program is not narrow enough.
"In this instance, the program does not limit eligibility to people
who have actually experienced discrimination," Svenson said. "More
race-neutral means could have been utilized by the city of
Evanston, insofar as they could have asked for people to provide
proof of housing discrimination, and they did not, so it's overly
broad." [GN]
EVOLUTION GROUP: Pinedo Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolution Group Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Kelvin Silva Pinedo, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Evolution Group Inc., De
Campos Home Improvement Inc., Rafael Goulart De Campos, Hortencia
Ribeiro Salvador, Case No. 2485CV00643 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester
Cty., June 4, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Evolution Group -- https://www.evolutiongroupinc.com/ -- is a
full-service contracting firm headquartered in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Matthew D. Patton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 338-9400
FACEGYM USA: Karim Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FaceGym USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04350 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 7, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services FaceGym provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.usa.facegym.com (hereinafter "Usa.facegym.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
The Website contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website.
Because Defendant's website, Usa.facegym.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Walker Brothers' 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 her
computer.
Usa.facegym.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by
FaceGym.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: +1 347-941-471
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
FASTLY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 23
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY) securities between
February 15, 2024 and May 1, 2024. Fastly operates an edge cloud
platform for processing, serving, and securing customer's
applications.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Fastly, Inc. (FSLY) Failed to Disclose the Deceleration in Growth
Among its Largest Customers
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that:
(i) contrary to its representations to investors, Fastly was
in fact experiencing a significant deceleration in growth among its
largest customers and was losing the increased market share it had
gained as a result of the 2023 CDN consolidation trend;
(ii) the foregoing issues were likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's revenue growth;
(iii) accordingly, the Company was unlikely to meet its own
previously issued revenue guidance for FY 2024; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's financial position and/or
prospects were overstated.
Plaintiff alleges that Fastly announced disappointing first quarter
2024 financial results on May 1, 2024, reporting revenue of only
$133.52 million, missing consensus estimates by $0.35 million. The
Company also lowered its FY 2024 revenue guidance to a range of
$555 million to $565 million, significantly below its previously
issued FY 2024 revenue guidance of $580 million to $590 million,
and likewise below consensus estimates of $584.62 million for the
same period. On May 2, 2024, Bank of America downgraded Fastly
stock from a "Buy" rating to an "Underperform" rating and cut its
price target on the stock from $18 per share to $8 per share.
Following these developments, Fastly's stock price fell $4.14 per
share, or 32.02%, to close at $8.79 per share on May 2, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Fastly, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
July 23, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Phone: (800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
FLUSHING MEAT: Betances Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Betances, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees v. FLUSHING MEAT PROVISION CORP and DIONICIO ESTEVEZ,
individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-03975 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2024), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter
alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation.
The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
pay and compensate Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour
(the "minimum wage"); however, Plaintiff was only compensated at a
rate of $10 and $16 per hour for 40 hours workweek. The Defendants
were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate
Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate
for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, despite such
mandatory pay obligations, Defendants willfully only compensated
Plaintiff at a rate of $10 and $16 per hour and failed to pay
Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from October 5,
2022, until January 5, 2024, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a truck helper,
delivering meat to businesses in New York.
FLUSHING MEAT PROVISION CORP is a duly organized New York
Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
FTX GROUP: Asks Judge to Stop Class Action Suits Over FTX Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that FTX reportedly aims to stop class action
complaints and other lawsuits that target company insiders and
venture capital firms accused of being involved in the collapse of
the cryptocurrency exchange.
The company asked a U.S. judge to stop this outside litigation,
saying it puts at risk its efforts to repay customers impacted by
the collapse, Reuters reported.
By selling assets and filing lawsuits to claw back money paid out
before its collapse, FTX has recovered some $16 billion to repay
customers, according to the report.
The outside litigation could put these funds at risk, the company
told the judge, per the report.
FTX also said that the class action lawsuits aim to collect legal
fees "despite having to date provided next to no monetary benefit"
for victims of the collapse, according to the report.
Adam Moskowitz, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in the
report: "Our goal is to provide relief for all FTX victims and we
appreciate all parties that are helping our efforts."
FTX said May 7 that it has pulled together assets worth enough to
pay back 98% of its creditors 118% of what they are owed. The
remaining 2% would get back 100% of their claim under a plan that
still needs approval from a federal judge.
"FTX has achieved this recovery level by monetizing an
extraordinarily diverse collection of assets, most of which were
proprietary investments held by the Alameda or FTX Ventures
businesses, or litigation claims," the company said at the time in
a news release.
In another legal action related to the collapse of FTX, it was
reported in April that a group of FTX investors agreed to drop
legal claims against FTX co-founder and former CEO Sam
Bankman-Fried in exchange for his cooperation in their suits
against other defendants.
The other defendants include various celebrities paid to promote
the exchange when it was flying high. Even before criminal charges
were filed against Bankman-Fried, a group of investors sued FTX's
celebrity endorsers for securities law violations, alleging that
they failed to conduct proper due diligence and helped further the
exchange's fraud. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Brunet Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, et
al. The case is styled as Amy Brunet, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02070-TWT-JEM (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andre J. Arias, Esq.
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chesnut Ridge Road
Montvale, NJ 07645
Phone: (201) 391-7000
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Howard Theodore Longman, Esq.
LONGMAN LAW, P.C.
354 Eisenhower Parkway
Livingston, NJ 07039
Phone: (973) 994-2315
Email: hlongman@ssbny.com
- and -
James Cameron Tribble, Esq.
John Raymond Bevis, Esq.
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: (770) 227-6375
Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
bevis@barneslawgroup.com
roy@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17 Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone: (212) 292-4441
Email: lgrant@labaton.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Dinardo Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jonathan Dinardo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00524 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on June 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02510-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
Ruben Honik, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 435-1300
Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam M. Shienvold, Esq.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC-PA
P.O. Box 1248
213 Market Street, 8th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Phone: (717) 237-6000
Fax: (717) 723-6019
- and -
Justin G. Weber, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS, LLP
100 Market Street, Suite 200
P.O. Box 1181
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Phone: (717) 255-1170
GOOGLE LLC: Court Certifies Online Advertising Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Google will face a GBP13.6 billion (EUR15.9bn) lawsuit alleging it
has too much power over the online advertising market, a London
court has ruled. The case concerns adtech, which decides which
online adverts people see, as well as how much they cost to
publishers.
Brought by the Ad Tech Collective Action LLP, the case alleges the
Google behaved in an anti-competitive way which caused online
publishers in the UK to lose money. Google parent Alphabet called
the case "incoherent" in its attempts to get the legal action
dropped. The Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled the case can now
go to trial.
"This is a decision of major importance to the victims of Google's
anti-competitive conduct in adtech," said former Ofcom director
Claudio Pollack, now a partner in Ad Tech Collective Action.
The Ad Tech Collective Action says digital advertising spend
reached $490 billion in 2021. The core allegation is that Google is
abusing dominance of the search sector and thereby reducing the
income websites get. Ad Tech Collective Action says Google has
engaged in "self-preferencing" -- in other words promoting its own
products and services more prominently than that of its rivals. It
says that means publishers end up getting less money for the ads
they host as well as having to pay "very high" fees to Google.
No court date has been set. The case is what is known as opt-out,
meaning all relevant UK publishers are included unless they
indicate otherwise it is being funded by an unknown third-party,
and says UK publishers who form part of the claim will not pay
costs to participate.
Google faces regulatory adtech probes in the UK, Europe and US,
while it has already faced fines of billions of pounds from the
European Commission for alleged anticompetitive behaviour. [GN]
HETERO DRUGS: Reaches Prelim Settlement Over Valsartan Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that the U.S.
District Judge presiding over all valsartan lawsuits has been told
that a preliminary settlement agreement has been reached with one
of the generic drug makers involved in the litigation, resolving
personal injury, economic loss and medical monitoring claims
brought against Hetero Drugs, Ltd. and Hetero Labs Ltd.
The India-based generic drug maker is one of several pharmaceutical
companies involved in the valsartan litigation, which emerged after
it was discovered in late 2018 that changes to the generic drug
manufacturing process caused the development of toxic chemicals in
most versions of the blood pressure medication distributed
throughout the United States.
Hetero is one of several manufacturers who issued valsartan
recalls, after it was confirmed that their pills contained high
levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), N-nitrosodiethylamine
(NDEA) and other chemical byproducts, which have been linked to an
increased risk of stomach cancer, liver cancer, esophageal cancer,
prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and other injuries.
The valsartan settlement agreement with Hetero comes after more
than 5 years of litigation, which currently involves more than
1,200 product liability lawsuits filed throughout the federal court
system against various drug makers. However, given the long latency
period for several types of cancer caused by NDMA in valsartan, new
lawsuits continue to be filed.
As a result of common questions of fact and law raised in
complaints filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide, the litigation
has been centralized for pretrial proceedings before U.S. District
Judge Robert B. Kugler in the District of New Jersey since 2019,
where the parties have been preparing groups of cases for early
"bellwether" trials, which are designed to help gauge how juries
are likely to respond to certain evidence and testimony that will
be repeated throughout hundreds of claims.
However, Kugler recently announced his retirement, and the
litigation was handed over to U.S. District Judge Renee M. Bumb,
whom valsartan lawyers met with for the first time last week. At
that time, Judge Bumb was advised of a pending settlement for
valsartan lawsuits specifically filed against Hetero, which should
effectively end their role in the litigation.
2024 Valsartan Settlement Update
Before the meeting, plaintiffs' attorneys and the Hetero defendants
sent a letter (PDF) to Judge Bumb, indicating their intent to file
a motion for preliminary approval of a Valsartan settlement in the
"near future", which would resolve most personal injury, economic
loss and medical monitoring lawsuits filed against the company.
Details on the proposed settlement have not been released, but
lawyers indicate the only Hetero Valsartan lawsuits that would
remain unresolved are those associated with economic loss lawsuits
linked to losartan, a similar hypertension drug from the same class
of medications. Hetero is the only manufacturer involved in the
settlement agreement.
After meeting with the parties, Judge Bumb issued a court order
(PDF) on May 31, calling for the parties to finalize the terms of
the settlement agreement for all three classes of lawsuits by June
30, 2024. The order also calls for the parties to meet with retired
Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider within the next 90 days to attempt
to resolve the remaining losartan economic loss lawsuits.
Judge Bumb indicated that she will not grant any preliminary
approval for the Valsartan settlement without the losartan lawsuits
being resolved as well, unless Magistrate Schneider indicates the
parties have reached an "irresolvable impasse" in settling the
losartan lawsuits.
If the settlement agreement is finalized, it would still leave
hundreds of valsartan lawsuits pending against other manufacturers,
which will likely face future bellwether trials to help the parties
gauge the average payout juries may award for individuals diagnosed
with various forms of cancer. However, if those remaining drug
makers fail to settle the remaining valsartan claims or otherwise
resolve the litigation, dozens of individual cases may later be
remanded back to different U.S. District Courts nationwide for
separate trial dates in the future. [GN]
HUMANA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased securities of Humana Inc. ("Humana" or the "Company")
(NYSE: HUM) between July 27, 2022 and January 24, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that Defendants downplayed
pressures on Humana's adjusted earnings-per-share resulting from
increased medical costs associated with pent-up demand for
healthcare procedures (especially as COVID concerns abated) which,
contrary to Humana's assurances, resulted in increased utilization
rates and costs.
The Complaint alleges that on June 13, 2023, UnitedHealth Group
Inc., one of Humana's principal health insurer competitors,
revealed that it was seeing "higher levels" of outpatient care
activity and suggested that this higher utilization was due to
"pent-up demand or delayed demand being satisfied." On this news,
the price of the Company stock fell more than 11%.
Then, on June 16, 2023, the Complaint alleges that Humana reported
"higher than anticipated non-inpatient utilization trends,
predominately in the categories of emergency room, outpatient
surgeries, and dental services, as well as inpatient trends that
have been stronger than anticipated in recent weeks, diverging from
historical seasonality patterns." On this news, the price of the
Company stock fell.
The Complaint further alleges that on January 18, 2024, Humana
revealed that its benefits expense ratio had increased to
approximately 91.4% for the fourth quarter of 2023 and
approximately 88% for the full year 2023. On this news, the price
of the Company stock fell nearly 8%.
Finally, on January 25, 2024, the Complaint alleges that Humana
announced a loss of $4.42 per share for the fourth quarter of 2023
that was "driven by higher than anticipated inpatient utilization .
. . and a further increase in non-inpatient trends," and stated
that it expected the higher level of medical costs would "persist
throughout 2024." On this news, the price of the Company stock fell
nearly 12%.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Humana
should contact the Firm prior to the August 2, 2024 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
INSPIRIT DEVELOPMENT: GMF 157 Files Appeal
------------------------------------------
Plaintiff GMF 157 LP has filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled GMF 157 LP, on behalf of itself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSPIRIT DEVELOPMENT
AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC (IDC), and ALEX R. CHIESI, Case No.
654907/2023, in the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, First Department.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit arises out of a
series of transactions and events that led to GMF paying IDC for
work performed by IDC's subcontractors.
The suit alleges that IDC did not pay subcontractors with the funds
advanced by GMF, and GMF then having to pay those subcontractors
again. GMF and IDC entered into a contract whereby IDC would manage
and perform renovations of the Premises. The monies paid by GMF to
IDC were trust funds, pursuant to the Lien Law of the State of New
York. IDC did not properly apply, and diverted, those trust funds,
causing GMF to have to make duplicate payments, says the suit.
The Contract called for IDC to bill GMF, and for GMF to pay IDC, on
a "cost-plus" basis, meaning that IDC would pass along to GMF the
costs of various subcontractors engaged by IDC to perform the Work,
plus a mark-up for IDC's fee, general conditions, overhead,
insurance, etc. IDC submitted invoices to GMF, which purported to
set forth costs incurred, and amounts paid, to subcontractors by
IDC. The funds paid by GMF and received by IDC for the Project
constituted trust funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the Lien Law of
the State of New York. IDC was required to keep all such funds in
trust for the benefit of those providing work, labor, materials and
services to the Project. IDC was also required to keep records of
all such trust funds, pursuant to the provisions of Article 3-A of
the Lien law of the State of New York, the suit asserts.
GMF was damaged by such diversions in an amount to be determined at
trial, but not less than the sum of $907,402.81, plus interest from
March 1, 2020. IDC and Chiesi are liable to GMF on account of such
diversions in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less
than the sum of $907,402.81, plus interest from March 1, 2020, plus
attorney's fees, punitive damages, and such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper, the suit alleges.
The appellate case is captioned as GMF 157 LP, on behalf of itself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSPIRIT
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC et al., Case No. 2024-03436, in
the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial
Department, filed on May 30, 2024.[BN]
KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Theft-Prone Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBT News reports that a settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit regarding the susceptibility of certain Kia and
Hyundai vehicles to theft. The case, titled "In re: Kia Hyundai
Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability
Litigation", was settled in the California federal court. The
lawsuit claims that specific Kia/Hyundai models from 2011 to 2022
lack engine immobilizers, making them prone to theft and damage.
Under the settlement, the automakers will establish a Common Fund
from $80 million to $145 million to cover approved claims for
out-of-pocket losses resulting from thefts or attempted thefts of
the affected vehicles. Additionally, Kia will offer a free Software
Upgrade for eligible cars, preventing the engine from starting
without the key. This upgrade will be available at no cost at
authorized Kia/Hyundai dealerships.
Owners of eligible vehicles can also receive reimbursement for
various related expenses:
-- Up to $250 for lost income or childcare costs during the
Software Upgrade.
-- Up to $50 for a steering wheel lock.
-- Up to $350 per crucial fob for OEM-issued key fobs (limited to
two per vehicle).
Owners of vehicles that are not eligible for the Software Upgrade
can receive reimbursement of up to $300 for anti-theft devices. If
the dealer has already provided the customer with a steering wheel
lock, the customer can receive a reimbursement of up to $250.
To benefit from the settlement, owners must submit a Claim Form
along with supporting documentation by January 11, 2025. Claim
Forms are available online at www.KiaTheftSettlement.com and
www.HyundaiTheftSettlement.com or can be requested via phone or
email.
Moreover, participants who do not wish to be part of the settlement
must exclude themselves by May 3, 2024, to retain the right to sue
Kia independently. Those who do not exclude themselves can object
to the settlement or request to speak at the Fairness Hearing
scheduled for July 15, 2024, at the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in Santa Ana.
At the hearing, the court will review the settlement's fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy. The court may also consider
objections and permit appearances from individuals who have
provided prior notice. [GN]
LEIDOS INC: Callis Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raven Callis, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. LEIDOS, INC., a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 37-2024-00021110-CU-OE-CTL was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on June 6, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00996-LL-MMP.
The Complaint alleged five causes of action for: failure to pay
overtime and double time; failure to provide compliant meal and
rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting
time penalties; and violation of California's UCL.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy M. Keegan, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
15 W. South Temple, Suite 950
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Phone: (801) 658-6002
Fax: (385) 360-1707
Email: tim.keegan@ogletree.com
- and -
Michael J. Murphy, Esq.
1909 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202)-263-0250
Fax: (804) 225-8641
Email: michael.murphy@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
Diane M. Saunders, Esq.
One Boston Place, Suite 3500
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 994-5704
Fax: (855) 225-8641
Email: diane.saunders@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
Chris R. Pace, Esq.
Brodie W. Herrman, Esq.
700 W. 47th Street, Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 410-2232
Fax: (855) 225-8641
Email: chris.pace@ogletreedeakins.com
brodie.herrman@ogletreedeakins.com
LEOSOURCE INSURANCE: Kujawa Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leosource Insurance
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Kujawa, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Leosource Insurance
Agency, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-60974-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 7,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Leo Source -- https://leosourceinsuranceagency.com/ -- is an
Insurance Agency that is licensed in 49 States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Email: rsoffin@milberg.com
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Torres Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dr. Anthony Torres
D.O., individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02504-MHC-RDC (N.D. Ga., June 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. -- https://risk.lexisnexis.com/ --
provides content-enabled workflow solutions. The Company offers
products in the areas of data and analytics, fraud detection and
prevention, identity verification and authentication,
investigation, receivables management, and screening.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Weiner, Esq.
Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
Weiner & Sand LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (404) 254-0842
Email: aw@wsjustice.com
js@wsjustice.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Nicholas Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Patterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Fax: (973) 525-2552
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, 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
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Shippley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patricia Shippley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, a foreign
company doing business in Washington State, Case No. 24-2-10416-0
SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington
for King County, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on June 7, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-00813.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims arising out of a
cybersecurity attack suffered by loanDepot in January 2024,
including: negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act ("WCPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher B. Durbin, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1900
Seattle, WA 98101-1355
Phone: (206) 452-8700
Fax: (206) 452-8800
Email: cdurbin@cooley.com
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lunique Agostini, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Luxottica of America, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04352
(S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Luxottica of America provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://www.glasses.com (hereinafter
"Glasses.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
The Website contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website.
Because Defendant's website, Glasses.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Walker
Brothers' 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 her
computer.
Glasses.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Luxottica of
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Mahmud-Bey Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Myrna Mahmud-Bey, a natural person,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08813 was removed from the Superior
Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 3, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-04605.
The Complaint asserts eight putative class action causes of action:
failure to pay minimum and regular rate wages; failure to pay
overtime wages; meal break violations; rest break violations;
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to
provide accurate wage statements; untimely final wages; and unfair
competition in violation of California Business and Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Phone: 619.232.0441
Fax: 619.232.4302
Email: sfahimi@littler.com
MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRNS) between
March 17, 2021 and May 7, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Marinus
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Marinus class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25735 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(1) defendants understated the risk of failure to meet the
early-stopping criteria in the RAISE trial;
(2) defendants did not disclose that a possible consequence of
failing to meet the early stopping criteria in the RAISE trial
would be that Marinus would stop the separate Phase 3 RAISE II
trial; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 5,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25735 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
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]
MASTERCORP INC: Settles Unfair Labor Practices Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
called Jane Doe, et al. v MasterCorp., Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00678
(E.D. Va.) (the "Settlement"). The Settlement is between Jane Doe,
John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 (collectively "Plaintiffs"), on behalf
of the proposed Settlement Class, and MasterCorp., Inc.
("MasterCorp" or "Defendant"). This Notice summarizes your rights
and options. More details are available at
www.ColombianHousekeeperSettlement.com.
Am I part of the Settlement Class?
You are a Settlement Class Member if:
-- You are a Colombian National or of Colombian origin;
-- You were paid by Perennial Pete, LLC or one of its affiliated
entities or companies, including SM Cleaning Solutions Inc.; WD
Cleaning Solutions Inc.; DM Cleaning Solutions Inc.; JM Cleaning
Solutions Inc.; EV Cleaning Solutions Inc.; EM Cleaning Services
and Solutions Inc.; SD Cleaning Services and Solutions Inc.; and
-- You provided housekeeping services at resorts in the United
States where MasterCorp was responsible for housekeeping between
March 19, 2021 and May 15, 2024.
What is this lawsuit about?
Plaintiffs claim that MasterCorp subjected Settlement Class Members
to unfair and unlawful practices. These included working Settlement
Class Members for long hours without overtime pay, and
immigration-related misconduct that made Settlement Class Members
vulnerable. MasterCorp denies these claims. The Court has not
decided who is right or wrong. The parties have agreed to the
Settlement to avoid the risks, uncertainty, expense, and burden of
litigation.
What does the Settlement provide?
Settlement Class Members who file a valid and timely claim will
receive an equal share of the $4,950,000 USD Settlement Amount less
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, service awards, settlement
administration costs, and any applicable taxes ("NET Settlement
Amount").
There are an estimated 205 Settlement Class Members. If all 205
file a claim, they will each receive 1/205 of the NET Settlement
Amount. If fewer Class Members file a claim, payments will increase
equally on a pro rata share, up to a maximum of 1/50 of the NET
Settlement Amount. Any remaining funds will be distributed to St.
Jude for undocumented-immigrant-related services.
How can I get a payment?
You must complete and submit a timely Claim Form online at
www.ColombianHousekeeperSettlement.com or mailed postmarked by
August 13, 2024 to: Colombian Housekeeper Settlement, c/o JND Legal
Administration, PO Box 91308, Seattle WA 98111. If you do not
submit a valid Claim Form by August 13, 2024, you will not receive
a payment, but you will be bound by the Court's judgment.
What are my other options?
1) Do nothing. Receive no payment. Be bound by the Court's
decision. Give up your right to sue or continue to sue MasterCorp
for the claims in this case.
2) Exclude yourself ("Opt Out"). Remove yourself from the
Settlement Class and receive no payment. This is the only option
that allows you to keep your right to sue or continue to sue
MasterCorp for the claims in this case.
3) Object. Tell the Court what you do not like about the
Settlement. You will still be bound by the Settlement, and you may
still file a claim.
The deadline to exclude yourself or object is August 13, 2024. For
more details about your rights and options and how to exclude
yourself or object, visit www.ColombianHousekeeperSettlement.com.
What happens next?
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on September 20, 2024
to consider whether to give final approval to the Settlement and
grant Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and litigation
costs not to exceed one third of the Settlement Amount plus
reasonable costs; service awards to Plaintiffs at a maximum amount
of $7,500 in U.S. dollars each; as well as reimbursement for
expenses incurred for settlement administration, including notice
and taxes. The Court appointed Rachel Geman from Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Mark Hanna from Murphy Anderson PLLC
as Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. You do
not need to attend the hearing, but you are welcome to attend at
your own expense.
How do I get more information?
Visit www.ColombianHousekeeperSettlement.com or call 1-888-825-1238
(from U.S.) or 01-800-519-1529 (from Colombia). [GN]
NAPLETON ENTERPRISES: Little Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NAPLETON ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a NAPLETON'S SOUTH
ORLANDO CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, Case No. 8:24-cv-01357-TPB-AEP
(M.D. Fla., June 4, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a result of the Defendants unsolicited
text messages.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they
have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of Polk County,
Florida.
The Defendant is a corporation whose principal office is located in
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 533-4092
Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
NATALI INC: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natali, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as James Hill, and all others similarly situated
v. Natali, Inc. d/b/a SF Badlands, Les Natali, Does 1-60 inclusive,
Case No. CGC24615257 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 6,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract/Warranty."
Natali Products -- https://nataliproducts.com/ -- is leading
supplier of professional skincare, spa equipment, salon furniture,
makeup, wax and nail supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Berko, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL BERKO
819 Eddy Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-771-6174
Email: daniel@berkolaw.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sunday Ticket Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Reddy, writing for ABCNews, reports a class-action lawsuit
filed by "Sunday Ticket" subscribers claiming the NFL broke
antitrust laws got underway in federal court, with the league's
attorney telling jurors that fans have a choice when it comes to
watching games and the "Sunday Ticket" package is a premium
product.
"The case is about choice. This is a valuable, premium product.
Think about all the choices available to fans. We want as many
people as possible to watch the free broadcasts," said Beth
Wilkinson, who is representing the NFL.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2015 and has withstood numerous
challenges, says the NFL broke antitrust law when it allowed
DirecTV to exclusively sell the "Sunday Ticket" package of
out-of-market Sunday afternoon games airing on CBS and Fox at what
it says was an inflated price and restricted competition.
"NFL, Fox, CBS and DirecTV agreed to make an expensive toll road
that very few people would be able to afford. Every single
competitor in this scheme benefited," Amanda Bonn, an attorney
representing "Sunday Ticket" subscribers, said in her opening
remarks.
DirecTV was the home of "NFL Sunday Ticket" from 1994 until 2022.
YouTube will be in the second season this year of a seven-year deal
after agreeing to the rights in December 2022.
The class-action case covers more than 2.45 million commercial and
residential subscribers from 2012 to 2022 and seeks $7.1 billion in
damages. Since damages are tripled under federal rules, the NFL
could be liable for up to $21 billion if it loses.
The NFL contends "Sunday Ticket" is an add-on package for the
league's most-devoted and out-of-town fans, along with noting that
all games for local teams are available on broadcast networks.
Steve Bornstein, a former NFL executive and the first president of
NFL Network, said during afternoon testimony that "Sunday Ticket"
was always set up so that it wouldn't broadly hamper CBS and Fox's
local ratings.
Contracts between DirecTV and the NFL that were entered into
evidence showed language that "it will marketed and offered in a
manner consistent as a high-quality premium subscription sports
offering."
"The NFL always wanted 'Sunday Ticket' to be an additional package.
That is how it is was designed since its inception," Bornstein
said.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry
Jones, a longtime member of the league's broadcast committee, are
expected to testify in a trial that could last up to three weeks.
The trial could bring to light how much YouTube is paying the NFL
for "Sunday Ticket" and if it is making money. There also will be
documents filed that would show how much networks spend to produce
an NFL game.
Bonn showed a 2020 term sheet by Fox Sports demanding the NFL
ensure "Sunday Ticket" would be priced above $293.96 per season on
streaming platforms in the 11-year rights deal it signed with the
NFL in 2021 and that began in 2023. That was the price for the 2020
season.
When the "Sunday Ticket" contract was up for bid in 2022, ESPN
wanted to offer the package on its streaming service for $70 per
season along with offering a team-by-team product, according to an
email shown by Bonn.
This is one of the rare occasions where the NFL has had a
high-profile case go to court where league financial matters would
become public without settling. In 2021, it settled with St. Louis,
St. Louis County and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports
Complex Authority for $790 million over the relocation of the Rams
to Los Angeles.
The "Sunday Ticket" case attracted a large crowd of attorneys and
media members to the courtroom of Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. An
overflow room was eventually set up 10 minutes into opening
statements. [GN]
NELNET INC: Walsh Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet, Inc. The case
is styled as Adriana Walsh, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Nelnet, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04325-DEH
(S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Nelnet, Inc. -- https://nelnet.com/ -- is a United States–based
conglomerate that primary focused on financial services including
student and consumer loan origination and servicing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, 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
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq.
MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (646) 759-3663
Fax: (646) 759-3663
Email: consumer.esq@outlook.com
NELNET SERVICING: Stevens Files FCRA Suit in S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet Servicing,
LLC. The case is styled as Amanda Stevens, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00280 (S.D.W. Va., June 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Sheridan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25526
Phone: (304) 562-7111
Fax: (304) 562-7115
Email: ben@kleinsheridan.com
- and -
Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN CONSUMER LAW
P. O. Box 654
Athens, WV 24712
Phone: (304) 207-0066
Email: jed@protectwvconsumers.com
NORDSTROM INC: Diaz Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Diaz, an individual, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and also on behalf of all aggrieved
employees v. NORDSTROM INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV00175 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on June 4, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04670.
On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint ("FAC") that added a second cause of action for civil
penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
Matthew Riley, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Phone: 858.677.1400
Fax: 858.677.1401
Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com
NOW OPTICS: Marous Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Now Optics Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Richard Marous, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Now Optics Holdings, LLC
doing business as: Stanton Optical, Case No. 9:24-cv-80702-RLR
(S.D. Fla., June 3, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Now Optics Holdings, LLC doing business as Stanton Optical --
https://www.stantonoptical.com/ -- provide easy eye care and offers
prescription eyeglasses, sunglasses & contacts at the lowest
prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Rachel Nicole Dapeer
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
P&M LAW: Appeals Injunction Ruling in Mey TCPA Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants WILLIAM PINTAS, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's May 17, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit styled
William Pintas, et al. The case is styled as Diana Mey, on behalf
of herself and a class of others similarly situated v. William
Pintas, P&M Law Firm, LLC, P&M Law Firm (PR), LLC, Reliance
Litigation LLC, James Ryder Interactive LLC, Case No.
5:24-cv-00055-JPB, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
filed on March 19, 2024, was brought over alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.
On April 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary
restraining order and a motion for preliminary injunction.
On May 17, 2024, Judge John Preston Bailey entered an Order
granting Plaintiff's motion for anti-suit injunction. This Court
issued an injunction and ORDERED that the parties are ENJOINED and
PROHIBITED from proceeding in any way with the underlying lawsuit
in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Court of First Instance.
The appellate case is captioned as William Pintas, et al. v. Diana
Mey, Case No. 24-1494, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 31, 2024.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants William Pintas, P&M Law Firm, LLC, P&M Law
Firm (PR), LLC, Reliance Litigation LLC, and James Ryder
Interactive LLC are represented by:
Carlos R. Baralt Suarez, Esq.
BARALT LAW LLC
P. O. Box 190751
San Juan, PR 00919
Telephone: (939) 625-3712
- and -
Richard Wayne Epstein, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER PA
200 East Broward Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Telephone: (954) 491-1120
- and -
Jeffrey Gilbert, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLC
600 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 789-2761
- and -
Blake N. Humphrey, Esq.
Jared Tully, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD
500 Virginia Street, East
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 348-2413
PACIFIC GAS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. The case is styled as Jose Garcia, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case
No. CGC24615226 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 4,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Pacific Gas and Electric Company -- https://www.pge.com/ -- is one
of the largest combination natural gas and electric utilities in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: 310-888-7771
Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
PERFECT FIT: Saguin Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Carmelita Saguin, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
other employee s similarly situated v. PERFECT FIT HOME CARE, LLC a
California Limited Liability Company, SCOTT JEFFREY FOX, an
individual, and DOES 16 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV14015 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2024), is
brought as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage,
wage and hour violation (overtime pay); failure to pay wages in a
timely manner; failure to provide earnings statements, unfair
competition.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that,
during the past she was employed by defendants, Plaintiff worked
without being constituted minimum wage, which was required by law.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
during the period that she was employed by Defendants, Plaintiff
regularly and routinely worked in excess of 8 hours in a given work
day or 40 hours in a given work week. As the result thereof,
pursuant to California Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare
Commission Order 9-2001, Plaintiff was entitled to receive overtime
pay for each of the hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day
and/or 40 hours per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a caregiver.
PERFECT FIT HOME CARE, LLC is a Limited Liability Company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. DesJardins, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC.
17130 Van Buren Blvd, #435
Riverside, CA 92504
Phone: (714) 265-2100
Fax: (714) 494-8215 Email:
md@desjardinslaw.com
PF CALI PAYROLL: Strandholt Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Noel Strandholt and Frank Lawson, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC;
PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01275491-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on June 10, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01256.
In his Complaint, Strandholt alleged, as an individual and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees, claims for: failure to
pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of
Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked
in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit meal
periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit
rest periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay
earned wages during employment in violation of Labor Code; failure
to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of
Labor Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final
paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of
Labor Code; and unfair business practices in violation of Business
and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel B Chammas, Esq.
Min K. Kim, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com
mkim@fordharrison.com
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Devine Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Devine, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Philadelphia Inquirer, LLC,
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on June 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02503 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, LLC -- https://www.inquirer.com/ -- is
an American media company.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Angelo A. Stio, III, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Ste. 400
Princeton, NJ 08648
Phone: (609) 452-0808
Fax: (609) 451-1147
Email: angelo.stio@troutman.com
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Hassell Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Hassell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Philadelphia Inquirer, LLC,
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on June 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02499 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, LLC -- https://www.inquirer.com/ -- is
an American media company.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Angelo A. Stio, III, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Ste. 400
Princeton, NJ 08648
Phone: (609) 452-0808
Fax: (609) 451-1147
Email: angelo.stio@troutman.com
PRESTIGE PROTECTIVE: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Gate Bell,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Venancio Mercado, on behalf of
himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. Prestige
Protective Services Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 24STCV14239 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Prestige Protection Service --
https://prestigeprotectionservices.com/ -- is a California-based
company that specializes in providing professional security
services for homes and corporate organizations in Inland Empire,
Orange County, and Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashly Valenzuela, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: avalenzuela@lelawfirm.com
ROSE HILLS MORTUARY: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elizabeth Perez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Rose Hills Mortuary, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; Rose Hills Company, a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10847
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on June 7, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-04827.
The Complaint alleges unfair competition in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code and seeks statutory
penalties for multiple types of alleged violations, including:
Failure to provide meal periods; Failure to provide rest periods;
Failure to pay hourly wages; Failure to pay overtime wages; Failure
to produce requested employment records; provide accurate written
wage statements; Failure to timely pay all final wages; Failure to
indemnify for expenditures; Unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie M. Francis (309280)
STINSON LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
Phone: (602) 279-1600
Fax: (602) 240-6925
Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com
ROSE HILLS: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Manuel Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. ROSE HILLS
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; DIGNITY MEMORIAL, a business
entity of unknown form; SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, a
business entity of unknown form; SCI SHARED SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV11192 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04632.
The Complaint alleges unfair competition in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code and seeks statutory
penalties for multiple types of alleged violations, including:
Failure to provide meal periods; Failure to provide rest periods;
Failure to pay hourly wages and overtime; Failure to pay proper
sick pay; Failure to provide accurate written wage statements;
Failure to timely pay all final wages; Unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie M. Francis, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
Phone: (602) 279-1600
Fax: (602) 240-6925
Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com
RW SUPPLY AND DESIGN: Arjmandi Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RW Supply and Design,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Parvin Arjmandi, as Trustee of
the LAMH TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RW Supply and Design, LLC, Teckton Corporation, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00704 (M.D. Tenn., June 7, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
RW Supply + Design -- https://resources.rwsupply.com/ -- sells
hardwood flooring, lumber, and other building supplies to flooring
retailers and contractors. Vienna, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Hammervold, Esq.
HAMMERVOLD LAW
155 S. Lawndale Avenue
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Phone: (405) 509-0372
Email: mark@hammervoldlaw.com
SKY ZONE: Settles Biometrics Class Action for $1.05 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Sky Zone employees could benefit
from a $1.05 million settlement if the company collected their
biometrics while they worked at the trampoline park.
The settlement benefits individuals who scanned one or more fingers
into a Sky Zone computer system between April 29, 2014, and April
23, 2024.
Group 1 class members include individuals identified by Sky Zone's
records or other information, while Group 2 class members include
individuals who scanned their biometrics at any Sky Zone Trampoline
Park locations in Elmhurst, Aurora or Joliet, Illinois.
According to employees in the class action lawsuit, Sky Zone failed
to properly get their consent before collecting their fingerprints
through time keeping systems. Plaintiffs in the case argue that
this violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Sky Zone is an indoor trampoline park with locations around the
country, including Illinois.
Sky Zone hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.05
million to resolve the BIPA class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Sky Zone settlement, class members can
receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payments
will vary depending on the number of valid claims filed, but each
class member is estimated to receive $350-$650.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 15, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
21, 2024.
Group 1 class members do not need to file a claim to receive a
settlement payment. Group 2 class members must submit a valid claim
form by July 29, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who scanned one or more fingers into a Sky Zone
computer system between April 29, 2014, and April 23, 2024
Potential Award $350 to $650
Proof of Purchase N/A
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 07/29/2024
Case Name
Stauffer v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00046-MAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois
Final Hearing 08/21/2024
Settlement Website SkyBIPASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Sky Zone BIPA Settlement
c/o Atticus Administration
PO Box 64053
St. Paul, MN 55164
SkyBIPASettlement@atticusadmin.com
(888) 205-6166
Class Counsel
Kevin P Green
Richard S Cornfeld
Daniel S Levy
Thomas C Horscroft
GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI PC
2227 IL-157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: (618) 656-5150
Defense Counsel
Kenneth L Schmetterer
Raj N Shah
Eric M Roberts
DLA PIPER LLP
444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606-0089
Tel: (312) 368-4000
Fax: (312) 236-7516
Jennifer L Maloney
BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE LLC
100 North Broadway, Suite 2100
St. Louis, MO 63102-2737
Tel: (314) 345-5000
Fax: (314) 345-5055 [GN]
T.E.S. CONTRACT: Court Denies "Misclassification" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prateek Awasthi, writing for MathewsDinsdale, reports that that on
June 3, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a motion to
certify a class action alleging misclassification of independent
contractors on the basis of their assignment by a temporary help
agency. The Court found that the issue of whether an individual was
subject to an agreement to assign under section 74.3 of the
Employment Standards Act, 2000, ("ESA") could not be determined on
a class-wide basis.
In Davidson v. T.E.S. Contract Services Inc., 2024 ONSC 3066, the
representative plaintiff, Colleen Ann Davidson ("Davidson") brought
a motion to certify a class action against T.E.S. Contract Services
Inc. ("TES"), on behalf of all individuals on contract with TES who
were classified as independent contractors. Davidson alleged that
they were misclassified and should be entitled to overtime pay,
vacation pay and statutory holiday pay, and other benefits owing to
employees under the ESA. If certified, the class could have
involved thousands of contractors going back to 2009.
No commonality under section 74.3 of the ESA
Under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, ("CPA"), a person can
commence a proceeding on behalf of members of a class, and such
proceedings can be certified as a class action, if the claims raise
common issues that can be decided on a class-wide basis.
In support of the allegation of misclassification on a class-wide
basis, Davidson had argued that if there was an agreement by a
temporary help agency to assign any persons, including true
independent contractors, to a client, section 74.3 of the ESA would
deem them to be employees, and therefore, no individual enquiry
would be required to determine employment status, either under
section 1(1) of the ESA or at common law.
Section 74.3 of the ESA deems a temporary help agency to be the
employer "[w]here a temporary help agency and a person agree,
whether or not in writing, that the agency will assign or attempt
to assign the person to perform work on a temporary basis for
clients or potential clients of the agency". Section 1(1) of the
ESA defines "employee".
TES opposed this interpretation of section 74.3 of the ESA and
argued that, in any case, there was no basis for commonality on the
issue of whether TES was the employer of the putative class
members, since there was no basis in fact for any agreement to
assign Davidson or any member of the class.
Davidson's own evidence was that she had applied for a job to a
client of TES who interviewed her, selected her for the job and
offered her a position as a User Experience Designer. She
incorporated a company and signed an independent contractor
agreement with TES, which provided payroll and contract
administration services to the client, pursuant to a Master
Professional Services Agreement ("MPSA"). After her contract was
terminated by the client, she alleged she was employed by TES, and
made a claim for benefits available to employees.
On the facts, the Court found that there had been no agreement to
assign, drawing a parallel with the decision in Sondhi v. Deloitte
Management Services LP, 2017 ONSC 2122, ("Sondhi") in which the
Plaintiff had made the same argument under s. 74.3 of the ESA
against Procom Consultants Group Limited ("Procom"). In Sondhi, the
Court had dismissed the certification motion against Procom,
finding that they had not acted as a placement agency but only as a
payment processor and contract administrator and had nothing to do
with the placement of document reviewers to perform work on a
temporary basis for a client.
Crucially, in Davidson v. T.E.S. Contract Services Inc., Justice
Glustein held that the issue of whether TES and each putative class
member had an agreement to assign under s. 74.3 of the ESA could
not be decided on a class-wide basis and would need to be
determined on an individual basis.
Acknowledging that the issue of whether independent contractors are
subject to section 74.3 of the ESA "raises significant consequences
to workers and [temporary help agencies]", the Court declined to
decide on the issue, as it was not necessary for the purpose of
determining certification, and any conclusion should await
determination in a case where it is necessary to address the
statutory interpretation issue.
No commonality under section 1(1) of the ESA or at common law
The Court reviewed its prior decisions in proposed
misclassification class actions including the requirement that a
proposed representative plaintiff must lead evidence to provide a
basis in fact to establish systemic commonality between the members
of the proposed class, in order to avoid succumbing to an "it
depends" reality. The Court reaffirmed that in the absence of
evidence establishing commonality on a class-wide basis, there is
no basis in fact to find that resolving the proposed common issue
would avoid duplication of fact finding or legal analysis.
On the facts, the Court found there was no evidence that there was
any similarity in job function amongst the potential class members,
nor did they work for the same entity. Further, reviewing all the
evidence, including the template independent contractor agreement,
the MPSA, a health and safety booklet, and email correspondence,
the Court did not find any basis in fact to establish systemic
commonality of employment status under the definition of "employee"
in section 1(1) of the ESA, or at common law.
Takeaways
Employers can rest assured that even though the "some basis in
fact" test for class certification is a low evidentiary threshold,
the Superior Court has taken its gatekeeping role seriously, which
is critical to ensuring that a claim is appropriately prosecuted as
a class action. In this regard, Justice Glustein's decision
strengthens the jurisprudence of the Court, as articulated in Price
v. H. Lundbeck A/S, 2022 ONSC 7160 and 2018 ONSC 4333.
For temporary help agencies in particular, this decision provides
welcome relief that independent contractors will not automatically
be deemed to be employees by statute. While such an argument may be
advanced in future cases, the clarity provided by this decision
regarding the requirements of an "agreement to assign" will
undoubtedly be helpful for class action litigants.
Mathews Dinsdale lawyers Jeffrey E. Goodman, Stephanie M. Ramsay
and Prateek Awasthi appeared on behalf of the employer, T.E.S.
Contract Services Inc. in this case. [GN]
TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Money-Laundering Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports a proposed class-action lawsuit has been
launched against TD Bank related to the ongoing investigations into
the bank's anti-money-laundering program in the U.S.
The suit launched by Sotos Class Actions is on behalf of
shareholders who bought TD shares between Aug. 26, 2021 and June 3,
2024.
It alleges TD misrepresented systemic deficiencies in its
anti-money-laundering controls which, after the deficiencies were
disclosed, caused a significant drop in TD's stock price.
TD has faced financial penalties in connection to the ongoing U.S.
regulatory inquiry into its anti-money laundering compliance
program, which it disclosed last year.
In a statement, the bank said the allegations in the proposed class
action are without merit and would be contested.
TD said its disclosures and public statements are and have been
consistent with its obligations under securities law and its
responsibilities to shareholders. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Sweeney of KFVS reports that attorneys in Stoddard County
file a class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods and the company
buying its Dexter Processing Plant.
The civil action, filed on behalf of 45 people, accuses the
companies of being involved in a fraudulent scheme that's
devastated the region.
Dexter attorney Russell Oliver talked about the suit, regarding the
dozens of local farmers it represents.
"Kathy, the proposed class is made up of local, Bootheel family
farms who mortgaged their farms, invested millions of dollars to
build infrastructure that was designed and purposed to do one thing
-- and that was to raise chickens for slaughter that fed American
families," said Oliver.
But Oliver says this lawsuit alleges anti-competitive behavior by
Tyson Foods and Cal-Maine Foods will prevent those families from
doing the one job they set out to do. It reads, "Defendants' scheme
has devastated the community of Dexter, Missouri, and many chicken
farmers in that area."
"This fact renders the value of those farms, which once were at
millions of dollars, to nearly nothing," said Oliver.
The suit references a property use agreement between Tyson and
Cal-Maine, but most of the details of that 25-year agreement are
redacted or blacked out. But, you can get some sense of what it
contains when you look at the first lawsuit filed against Tyson on
behalf of a local chicken farmer back in May.
On page seven describing that property use agreement, a footnote at
the bottom of the page references meat. According to the lawsuit,
Cal-Maine produces table eggs, and does not process chickens. All
the local farmers who worked for Tyson raised chickens for
slaughter.
Oliver says he cannot discuss those blacked out details.
"Quite frankly Kathy, Tyson should quit hiding behind these
documents. Tyson should do the right thing. They need to make them
public. Farmers and the entire community of Dexter deserve to know
the truth of what's been going on," said Oliver.
As for what's next, Oliver tells they're asking a judge to
recognize the case's class action status, meaning it represents the
interests of those 45 local farmers. Tyson and Cal-Maine will also
have 30 days to respond. [GN]
UNION CARBIDE: Sommerville Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 4th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LEE ANN SOMMERVILLE has filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment dated May 13,
2024 entered in the lawsuit styled LEE ANN SOMMERVILLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00878, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia at Charleston.
The case, brought by the Plaintiffs on December 6, 2019, involves a
proposed medical monitoring class action against Defendants Union
Carbide Corporation and Covestro, LLC, as the owners and operators
of a manufacturing facility in South Charleston, West Virginia, for
alleged emissions of ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen. The
Plaintiff and proposed class members reside in neighborhoods
surrounding the plant, and their lawsuit is based on an alleged
significant increase in their risk of developing cancer as a result
of the Defendants' alleged EtO emissions.
After UCC moved to dismiss the Complaint and to strike the
Complaint on February 7, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to
file a First Amended Complaint on March 12, 2020. The Plaintiff did
so. On May 14, 2020, the Court granted in part UCC's Motion to
Dismiss that First Amended Complaint, leaving only Plaintiff's
medical monitoring claim pending. The Plaintiff was then given
leave to amend again, and on January 15, 2021, filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint, maintaining a medical monitoring
claim and adding eight new defendants. All Defendants, except UCC
and Covestro, have since been dismissed from this action.
On May 13, 2024, for the foregoing reasons, the Court held that
Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring this action on behalf
of herself or the proposed class, and her claim is not ripe. The
court, therefore, ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider
Plaintiff's claim. As such, the case is DISMISSED.
A JUDGMENT ORDER was entered in accordance with the accompanying
Memorandum Opinion and Order; DISMISSING this action and directing
that this case be stricken from the docket as signed by Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin.
The appellate case is captioned as Lee Sommerville v. Union Carbide
Corporation, Case No. 24-1491, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 30, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Opening
Brief and Appendix are due on July 9, 2024 and Response Brief is
due on August 8, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LEE ANN SOMMERVILLE, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Benjamin Dean Adams, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
222 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (681) 341-6480
- and -
Joshua M. Autry, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
333 West Vine Street
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 899-8785
- and -
Adam J. Gomez, Esq.
Kelly Lauren Tucker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 North Orange Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2031
- and -
Frank Petosa, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
8151 Peters Road
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
- and -
Rene F. Rocha, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
400 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
- and -
Mark E. Troy, Esq.
BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
500 Virginia Street East
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-4222
- and -
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 North Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Defendants-Appellees UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., are
represented by:
Matthew K. Ashby, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4384
- and -
Patricia M. Bello, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
707 Virginia Street, East
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 553-0166
- and -
John L. Ewald, Esq.
Kristen Renee Fournier, Esq.
Kevin M. Hynes, Esq.
Alvin Lee, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-4003
Telephone: (212) 790-5341
- and -
Ronald Scott Masterson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
600 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 348-8570
- and -
Travis L. Brannon, Esq.
David A. Fusco, Esq.
Wesley A. Prichard, Esq.
Emily Celeste Weiss, Esq.
K&L GATES, LLP
K&L Gates Center
210 6th Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312
Telephone: (412) 355-6500
- and -
Kelly Calder Mowen, Esq.
Jon Barry Orndorff, Esq.
ORNDORFF MOWEN PLLC
135 Corporate Centre Drive
Scott Depot, WV 25560
Telephone: (866) 481-2765
UNITED STATES: Settlement for Iraqi Detainees Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Berg of The Detroit News reports that a federal court has
preliminarily approved a proposed settlement agreement in a 2017
class action lawsuit between the federal government and Iraqi
nationals that would ensure Iraqis will not be indefinitely
detained or arrested because they want to regularize their
immigration statuses, according to the American Civil Liberties
Union of Michigan.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Mark
Goldsmith issued an order preliminarily approving the class
settlement and setting a fairness hearing for July 31. Both the
ACLU and the Biden administration agreed to the settlement,
according to the joint motion to approve it.
The ACLU filed the class action lawsuit in 2017 during the Trump
administration on behalf of 1,400 Iraqi people, many of whom had
been arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without
warning and threatened with immediate deportation, according to the
ACLU.
Many had been living in the U.S. for decades but had previously
been ordered to be deported, either for technical immigration
violations or for past convictions, according to the ACLU. The
Iraqi government had refused to issue travel documents, so the U.S.
could not deport them. In 2017, ICE arrested hundreds of Iraqis
with old removal orders with the intention of deporting them. More
than 100 were from Metro Detroit.
The ACLU argued this could result in injury, torture or death to
the Iraqis who were deported and asked for time to reopen the
immigration cases, which the court allowed. The court also ruled in
2018 that detention be individually assessed and for those in
custody longer than six months to be released.
The federal government appealed the rulings, but the class action
lawsuit allowed hundreds of Iraqis to be released from detention
while pursuing their immigration cases. Many have been granted
asylum or legal residence, and some, like the lead plaintiff Sam
Hamama, are now U.S. citizens.
"It is time to close this case and provide our immigrant population
with a clear and fair process for staying in this country," Hamama
said in a statement. "Everyone deserves a chance to live out their
American Dream. In November of 2020, I became a proud citizen of
the United States of America. Today, I am still in southeastern
Michigan running my family business and appreciating every day that
I have with my wife and my four beautiful children."
The settlement agreement would apply to all Iraqi nationals in the
United States who had final orders of removal between March 1,
2017, and June 24, 2017, and whose final orders of removal from
that period had not been executed.
It limits why, when and for how long Iraqi nationals in the class
can be detained during and after removal proceedings. It does not
impact any individual immigration cases or the government's ability
to deport people if they lose their case.
"Too often, immigrants are locked up for months or years for
absolutely no reason other than they want what so many of us have
already, the chance to build a life in America," Miriam Aukerman,
senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, said in a
statement. "The proposed settlement will help prevent the needless
detention of people fighting to stay with their families and remain
in their communities, rather than being removed to Iraq, where they
may face persecution, torture, or even death." [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF COLUMBIA: Settles Campus Safety Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Surina Venkat, writing for Columbia Spectator, reports that
Columbia will hire a "Safe Passage Liaison" and maintain a 24/7
Public Safety escort program as part of its settlement of a class
action lawsuit, filed by a Jewish student in late April in response
to an alleged rise in "round-the-clock harassment of Jewish
students" on and near Columbia's campus.
The lawsuit, which was filed on April 29 against the University,
was submitted by anonymous plaintiff "C.S.," a second-year Jewish
student at Columbia. She submitted the class action complaint on
behalf of herself and "all others similarly situated" at Columbia,
alleging that the administration allowed an "extremist element of
demonstrators" to "target Jewish students and faculty with
harassment, hate speech and violence."
The "Safe Passage Liaison" will serve as the "designated point of
contact" for students who express safety concerns related to
demonstrations on Columbia's Morningside campus and will assist in
coordinating walking escorts for students through the Public Safety
escort program. Both the "Safe Passage Liaison" and the Public
Safety escort program will remain in place at least until Dec. 31.
The University also committed to providing a process for students
to retrieve their belongings on campus during periods when campus
access is restricted; an appeals process for students who were
unable to complete coursework or exams due to campus
demonstrations; and a method for the University's Chief Operating
Officer to coordinate with the "Safe Passage Liaison" and "campus
stakeholders" to create alternate campus entrance and exit routes
for escorted students. Additionally, the University affirmed its
"continued commitment to the academic tradition of free thought and
open debate" in its settlement.
In return, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw her emergency motion
for a temporary restraining order and dismiss the claims in her
complaint. The terms of settlement leave room for some claims to be
refiled in court.
"We are pleased we've been able to come to a resolution and remain
committed to our number one priority: the safety of our campus so
that all of our students can successfully pursue their academic
goals," a University spokesperson wrote in a statement to
Spectator.
Both Columbia and C.S. requested that the court temporarily retain
jurisdiction "for the sole purpose of adjudicating any disputes"
that arise when the parties meet again about the settlement. The
meeting will occur sometime in the next six months, and both
parties will have the opportunity to discuss concerns regarding the
other's ability to meet the stipulations of the settlement.
The class action complaint alleged that Jewish students had their
safety and education disrupted by the "Gaza Solidarity Encampment"
and that Columbia had "effectively cancelled in-person classes for
Jews for the remainder of the semester."
"Within a matter of hours, the protest escalated into a threatening
environment that endangered and continues to endanger the safety of
students, particularly those who identify as Jewish or have
connections to Israel," the complaint reads. The complaint
referenced several phrases shouted at Jewish students, including
"Go back to Poland!" and "The 7th of October will be every day for
you."
The complaint also alleged that Columbia's shift to hybrid learning
created an experience that resulted in Jewish students receiving a
"second-class education" in comparison to their non-Jewish peers,
stating that Jewish students "are relegated to their homes to
attend classes virtually, stripped of the opportunity to interact
meaningfully with other students and faculty and sit for
examinations with their peers."
The policy shift was "a clear admission" that the campus had
"become a place that is too dangerous for Columbia's Jewish
students to receive the education they were promised," according to
the complaint.
"The ongoing incidents of violence and harassment on campus
directly violate the university's own rules and commitments," the
complaint reads, citing the University's nondiscrimination policy,
Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action policies and
procedures, the Rules of University Conduct, and other policies
regarding student events and conduct.
The complaint also condemned the University's "inaction and
willingness to capitulate" to the demands of student protesters in
the encampment. In one example, it cited University President
Minouche Shafik issuing but not enforcing an ultimatum she gave to
students in the encampment to leave by midnight on April 24.
"In fact, Columbia's administration ultimately agreed to allow both
these extreme demonstrators and the encampment to remain in place,
and in a shocking twist, decided to bar the only Jewish professor
speaking out on behalf of the Jewish students from entering campus,
citing safety concerns," the complaint states. The incident refers
to Business School professor Shai Davidai, who was denied access to
the Morningside campus ahead of his plan to enter the encampment on
April 23.
The settlement comes as Columbia faces several lawsuits and a House
committee investigation that allege the University has failed to
address antisemitism on its campus. The University also faces a
lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine
Legal over the suspension of the Columbia chapters of Jewish Voices
for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, two
pro-Palestinian student groups. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Students Sue Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Fiorillo of Philadelphia Magazine reports that The
University of the Arts faces three federal class action lawsuits.
Employees of the University of the Arts filed two of those suits.
And the latest lawsuit was filed by students, who accuse the school
of fraud and breach of contract.
Well, that didn't take long. Just days after the shocking news that
the University of the Arts was suddenly closing, the school finds
itself the defendant in a class action lawsuit over the decision.
The lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia's federal court by nine
University of the Arts employees, including professors, department
directors and a librarian.
The lawsuit accuses the school of violating the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), a 1988 law designed to
protect employees by requiring most employers with 100 or more
employees to provide at least 60 days notice to employees of any
major closing or mass layoffs. The University of the Arts clearly
didn't do that.
The plaintiffs also accuse the University of the Arts of running
afoul of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law. The workers
allege that the University of the Arts has not paid them for some
of the hours they worked and for unused vacation time.
"This situation reflects a complete failure of leadership," says
Eric Lechtzin, the attorney representing the plaintiffs. "It is
incomprehensible how they could announce the closing of the
university within seven days, with no prior warning to anyone. In
fact, I've heard from people who recently left tenured positions at
other schools to join the faculty and staff of UArts, only to learn
mere weeks or months into their new position that UArts is
closing."
Lechtzin added that he's also heard from students, parents of
students, and major donors, all of whom are also considering legal
action.
Philly Mag was unable to reach anyone at the University of the Arts
for comment. [GN]
VANCOUVER WHITECAPS: Fans Sues Over SuperStar Players' No Show
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Proctor, writing for CBC News, reports that a B.C. soccer fan
wants to certify a class-action lawsuit against the Vancouver
Whitecaps and Major League Soccer (MLS) on behalf of customers who
claim they paid through the nose for tickets to a game featuring
Lionel Messi, only to see the superstar player turn out to be a
last-minute no-show.
In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Ho Chun
claims he paid $404 for a pair of tickets to a May 25 Whitecaps and
Inter Miami CF match which he was led to believe would be headlined
by football legends Messi, Luis Suarez and Sergio Busquets.
But two days before the game, Chun says event organizers "announced
that these famous soccer players would not be attending the game."
"This is a classic case of bait-and-switch," the lawsuit says,
citing print, online, social media and even billboard advertising
promising the trio of top-tier talent.
"Using such promotional materials as 'bait,' the defendants caused
the tickets for the Vancouver v. Miami game to be listed and sold
on the primary market at ten times higher than the price of other
Vancouver Whitecaps home games," the lawsuit claims.
The case of the missing Messi
The proposed class-action lawsuit comes on the heels of a debacle
that has already sparked a widely circulated petition calling for
compensation and transparency in relation the case of the missing
Messi.
Chun wants to certify a lawsuit on behalf of any individual,
"anywhere in the world, that was a holder of a ticket to the
Vancouver v. Miami game."
He's seeking a full refund for tickets that went unused and a
partial refund for tickets that were used amounting to the
difference between the price charged for the Miami game and the
average price for all other Whitecaps games.
The 22-page claim contains copies of game posters and
advertisements that appeared as far back as last December on
Whitecaps Facebook and Instagram accounts featuring Argentine World
Cup winner Messi, Uruguayan striker Suarez and Spanish midfielder
Busquets.
Chun claims the Whitecaps and the MLS were "reckless in not
confirming that Messi, Suarez, and/or Busquets would be playing at
the Vancouver v. Miami game."
After news broke that Miami would be keeping their top players in
Florida due to a busy league schedule, the Whitecaps announced a 50
per cent discount on food and drinks at the game as well as a free
meal combo for fans under 18.
The club later offered free tickets to another 2024 regular season
game for all fans who attended.
In his claim, Chun says he's not seeking to recover additional
service fees, facility charges and order processing fees from
Ticketmaster. But he cites "additional expenses" incurred by fans
who travelled from out of town to watch the game.
'I did all I could'
Chun's lawyer wouldn't comment further on the claim, but noted that
Messi failed to appear at a match in Hong Kong in February and also
missed games in Atlanta and Chicago — raising the ire of fans in
those cities.
The furor in Hong Kong rose to such a pitch that Messi took to a
Chinese social media platform to insist that he missed the match
because of an inflamed abductor muscle.
"I did all I could," he said in the post. "But I really couldn't
play."
Chun's proposed class-action suit is grounded in the terms of
B.C.'s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act as well as
the federal Competition Act.
In addition to a refund, he's seeking punitive damages against the
Whitecaps and the MLS.
The Whitecaps and the MLS have yet to file responses to the claim.
After news first broke that Messi, Suarez and Busquets might not be
attending, Whitecaps CEO Axel Schuster posted a statement online.
"Unfortunately, we have no control over who plays for our opponent,
and it was important for us to communicate to our fans as soon as
possible," Schuster said.
"We know that there will also be a lot of disappointed fans." [GN]
YOUNG LIVING: Settles "Therapeutic" Essential Oil Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Young Living agreed to an essential
oil settlement providing more than $5 million in coupons and other
cash benefits to consumers who purchased products from the
company.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased essential oil
products from Young Living between Jan. 1, 2017, and April 25,
2024.
According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Young Living
falsely promised its essential oil products were "therapeutic" and
capable of providing health-related benefits. In reality, these
products allegedly provide no health benefits and could even be
harmful, the consumers claim.
Young Living is a multilevel marketing company that sells essential
oil products.
Young Living hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $5
million essential oil settlement to resolve the class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Young Living settlement, class members can
receive cash compensation for purchased products. Class members who
provide proof of purchase can receive $2 per unit plus a $5 payment
for a maximum payment of $25. Class members without proof of
purchase can receive $1 per purchased product for a maximum payment
of $5. Cash payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending
on the number of claims filed.
Class members can also receive a $5 Young Living coupon. Total
coupon redemptions are capped at $5 million. Coupons cannot be used
on a rewards order, cannot be combined with other offers, can only
be used on an order of $25 or more and will be valid for six
months.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 8, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
15, 2024.
To receive payments from the Young Living settlement, class members
must submit a valid claim form by June 24, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased essential oil products from Young Living
between Jan. 1, 2017, and April 25, 2024
Potential Award
$25 in cash plus a $5 coupon
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, bills, credit card slips or other documentation of Young
Living purchases
Claim Form Deadline
06/24/2024
Case Name
McNaughton, et al. v. Young Living Essential Oils LP, Case No.
24LA0329, in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois
Final Hearing
07/15/2024
Settlement Website
EssentialOilsClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
MacNaughton, et al. v. Young Living Essential Oils LC
Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
PO Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
(833) 462-3478
Class Counsel
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (866) 252-0878
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 5th Ave Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (888) 747-4529
Defense Counsel
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
401 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 678-9100 [GN]
[*] 2023 Sees Rise in ADA Compliance and Data Breach Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports class action lawsuits have been on a record-setting
upward trend in recent years and they aren't showing any signs of
slowing. According to the Duane Morris Class Action Review 2024,
settlement numbers reached unprecedented levels in 2022 and 2023.
There were two categories of class action filings that showed
exponential growth in that time: ADA compliance and data breach.
These categories may seem disparate on the surface, but there are
unifying factors between the two that help explain this surge, one
of which is the use of generative AI.
The upward trend of these class action filings has been documented
across various reports and is expected to continue into 2024 and
beyond as high-profile settlements continue to inspire further
filings, and AI and other burgeoning technologies continue to
complicate the business landscape and present complex new
challenges.
The Growing Complexity of ADA Compliance
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on
July 26th, 1990, with the intent of preventing discrimination based
on disability across several areas including public accommodations,
transportation, employment, telecommunications, and more. Items
like wheelchair ramps, handicap bathroom stalls, braille signs, and
more all became not only more widely available in America, but a
legal necessity, thanks to this piece of legislation.
In subsequent decades the growth of technology and the rise of the
Internet have taken ADA compliance from the physical world into the
digital one, resulting in an ever-evolving definition of the term.
Today, non-compliance issues and subsequent class action suits
revolve largely around virtual spaces.
Websites fall under the category of "public accommodations" in the
language of the ADA, which means that they must be accessible to
those with disabilities in the same way that a commercial building
must. However, maintaining an ADA-compliant website or app is a
more nuanced and complicated task than providing wheelchair
accessibility. Site designers must continually work to provide alt
text descriptions of image and videos, consider color contrast,
maintain accessible site navigation, ensure screen reader
compatibility, and much more to remain compliant -- and as
technology continues to evolve, so do their responsibilities.
According to a recent report by UsableNet, a pioneer in the world
of digital accessibility, class action filings regarding ADA
compliance have nearly doubled since 2018. While the growing
complexities of maintaining accessible online spaces is certainly a
contributor to this rise, attempts to bypass those complexities by
relying on AI has no doubt played a role, too.
A number of companies have utilized generative AI to audit the
accessibility of their websites, which likely contributed to the
nearly 25% increase in class action suits against those same
companies that occurred between 2022 and 2023.
It may have seemingly limitless potential but relying on AI in its
current form to do something as important as maintaining ADA
compliance has posed significant risks to companies amid a surge in
class action litigation. Just as a ChatGPT prompt can't yet be
trusted to offer airtight grammar and unimpeachable facts,
generative AI designed to maintain accessibility in a website can't
yet be trusted to avoid compliance issues.
Data Breach Class Action Filings Soar
The Duane Morris Class Action Review 2024 shows that the number of
data breach class action filings jumped from slightly more than 300
in 2020 and 2021 up to nearly twice as much in 2022 and then soared
up to 1320 in 2023. That number will only continue to soar as data
breaches show no signs of slowing, and in fact saw a 78% increase
between 2022 and 2023 according to the Identity Theft Resource
Center.
Data compromises can happen in a variety of ways on both an
individual and a widespread scale. As more and more personal
information becomes stored across the Internet, the potential for
breaches to impact large groups of people only grows. According to
Statista, data compromises have nearly tripled in America between
2020 and 2023, which no doubt contributed to the more than 400%
increase in data breach-related class action filings that occurred
over the same period. However, there are other factors involved in
this exponential growth that should be considered.
One of those factors is the global strengthening of data protection
laws and regulations that has occurred in recent years. With a
higher standard of protection thanks to legislation like the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and
the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the U.S., data breach
victims have greater support when pursuing class action lawsuits.
With stronger data protection under the law, an increase in
cybercrime sophistication, and a heightened public awareness around
data privacy due to high profile data breach cases, it's easy to
see how there's been a surge in class action litigation in recent
years--but there's more to it than that. Just like with
AD-compliance filings, AI has played a significant role in this
uptick that should not be ignored.
AI's role in the exponential increase in data breach class action
filings has not been related to errors that have led to litigation,
but rather AI has served to simplify and improve class action
litigation. AI programs can collect evidence, predict outcomes,
file and manage claims, and more, making the process of pursuing
class action suits an easier and increasingly more common one.
Conclusion
The continued growth in ADA compliance and data breach class action
lawsuits is the result of a wide variety of influences. On one hand
there's the growing complexity of maintaining accessibility in
online spaces and the multifaceted difficulty of fending off
increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks, and on the other hand
there's the simplification of the class action filing process
thanks to the growth of AI. This trend can be expected to continue
its upward trajectory for the foreseeable future as data breaches
and AI continue to grow themselves, and the uptick in class action
settlements inspires further litigation. [GN]
[*] Federal Court Rules Committee Reviews Class Action Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court Rules Committee is conducting a review of the
Federal Court Rules, and is considering changes to the rules
applicable to class actions to "reflect procedural changes in the
provinces" and, in particular, the 2020 amendments made to
Ontario's Class Proceedings Act.
The Ontario amendments introduced a stricter test for certification
by adding superiority and predominance requirements, and introduced
a requirement that dispositive motions would by default be heard
before or with certification unless ordered otherwise. The Ontario
amendments also added rules regarding carriage motions, third-party
funding, and mandatory dismissal of proposed class proceedings for
delay. You can read Bennett Jones' summary of the Ontario
amendments here.
If changes to the Federal Court's rules are made to align them more
closely with Ontario's class action procedure, the Federal Court
may become a more challenging forum for plaintiffs to pursue class
proceedings. It could also result in a further shifting in the
Canadian class action landscape. After the Ontario amendments came
into effect in 2020, there was a relative increase in class action
filings in other provinces, notably British Columbia.
The Federal Court Rules Committee is receiving input on the
potential changes until July 2, 2024. [GN]
[*] GT Presents 2024 1st Quarter U.S. Class Action Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------
Greenberg Traurig LLP presents the class action litigation
newsletter for the 1st quarter of 2024.
This GT Newsletter summarizes recent class-action decisions from
across the United States.
Highlights from this issue include:
-- Southern District of New York denies class certification,
finding significant credibility issues make proposed class
representatives inadequate.
-- Fourth Circuit reverses denial of motion to dismiss
interconnected to class certification on interlocutory appeal under
Rule 23(f).
-- Fourth Circuit reaffirms ascertainability requirement based on
prior panel rulings.
Seventh Circuit affirms sanctions against defendants for
interfering with the class notice process by communicating directly
with class members and urging them to opt out.
-- Ninth Circuit issues two opinions addressing "express aiming"
of interactive websites for purposes of personal jurisdiction.
-- Eleventh Circuit reverses denial of class certification,
finding predominance requirement could be met because Fair Credit
Reporting Act does not require plaintiffs to show actual damages.
First Circuit
Ruiz v. NEI General Contracting, Inc., No. 21-11722, 2024 WL 869445
(D. Mass. Feb. 29, 2024)
District court modifies proposed subclass definitions to avoid
fail-safe issues.
Construction workers brought a putative class action against
contractors alleging state law unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, and
retaliatory termination claims arising from two separate phases of
a construction project. The construction workers sought to certify
three subclasses. The district court modified the proposed subclass
definitions to avoid fail-safe classes and address commonality
issues between Phase I and Phase II, and ultimately certified both
an overtime subclass and an unpaid wages subclass but declined to
certify a retaliation subclass.
The court found that the retaliatory termination subclass was
originally defined too broadly, as timesheets reflected only 11
impacted workers. Thus, a definition based on the impacted workers
would not be sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement. But if
the class was not narrowed to the impacted workers, the fluctuating
nature of the workforce made it impracticable to generate a common
answer as to the reason for termination or departure. Thus, when
defined appropriately the subclass lacked numerosity, and when
indefinitely defined it failed to meet other class requirements
under Rule 23.
The court redefined the overtime subclass and the unpaid overtime
premium subclass so that class membership was based on objective
terms that did not rely on the merits of the claim and to only
concern Phase II of the project. Based on the redefined subclass,
even though the overtime class included only 35 individuals, a
class was still a superior method for adjudication. As to the
unpaid overtime premiums subclass, common questions predominated
over the individual issue of the different amount of damages.
Second Circuit
Woodhams v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC,
No. 18-cv-3990, 2024 WL 1216595 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024)
Class certification denied where proposed class representatives
inadequate to represent the putative class given significant
credibility issues.
Plaintiffs brought a putative nationwide class action asserting
consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims alleging defendant
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC charged more
for "Maximum Strength" Robitussin cough syrup than for the "Regular
Strength" version of the same product, even though the "Maximum
Strength" syrup allegedly had half the concentration of active
ingredients following a reformulation effort as well as half the
number of doses. Plaintiffs further pointed to a summer 2018
reformulation of the "Regular Strength" syrup leaving the quantity
of active ingredients per dose unchanged but doubling the liquid
volume of the dose. Plaintiffs based their claims on purchases of
the "Maximum Strength" syrup during the time period between when
the "Maximum Strength" syrup was reformulated and when the "Regular
Strength" syrup was reformulated, i.e., mid-2016 to mid-2018.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (which was granted in part),
denied the allegations concerning its reformulation efforts, and
following discovery, moved for summary judgment, whereas plaintiffs
moved for class certification.
In opposing class certification, defendant argued that the named
plaintiffs could not meet the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) because their claims are subject to "unique defenses" that
"threaten to become the focus of the litigation." Among other
things, defendant pointed to the fact that four plaintiffs lacked
evidence that they purchased the "Maximum Strength" product during
the relevant time period and offered contradictory and inconsistent
deposition testimony as to when and how many times they purchased
it. These plaintiffs did not offer receipts reflecting their
purchases, and their purchases were not reflected on store loyalty
accounts. Further, defendant contended that the plaintiffs'
testimony suggested they did not purchase the "Maximum Strength"
product believing that the bottle had a higher concentration of
active ingredients than "Regular Strength," so a jury could find
there was no causal connection between defendant's alleged
misrepresentations and plaintiffs' purchases.
In denying class certification, the court found that defendant
"raised credible concerns about the central factual predicate of"
plaintiffs' claim that they purchased the product during the
relevant period, and that this defense is "meritorious enough to
require [plaintiffs] to devote considerable time to rebut" it.
Necessarily, as plaintiffs "would have to devote substantial
attention to overcoming their damaging deposition testimony and
addressing concerns regarding their credibility on material facts,
including whether they even purchased Maximum Strength Robitussin
during the relevant time period," they are inadequate class
representatives, rendering certification inappropriate. The court
granted the parties' request for more time to discuss next steps.
Hastings v. Nifty Gateway, LLC, No. 22-cv-10517, 2024 WL 1175196
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2024)
Motion to compel arbitration granted in putative class action where
online account sign-up page gave reasonably conspicuous notice, and
court declines to find PSLRA statutorily preempts arbitration.
Plaintiff John Hastings brought a putative class action against
defendants Nifty Gateway, LLC and the Gemini Trust Company, LLC
(collectively, "Nifty") alleging that Nifty violated federal
securities law by selling non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on its
platform, Nifty Gateway. Nifty moved to compel arbitration and stay
the action pending the outcome of the arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA). The court granted the motion to compel
arbitration based on plaintiff's "unambiguous" assent to the
arbitration clause in opening his three Nifty Gateway accounts.
First, the court analyzed Nifty's terms and conditions for users
who used the Nifty Gateway platform. To use the platform, a user
must first create an account through the website's sign-up page.
Above the "sign up" button on that page, there is a blue and
underlined "Terms and Conditions" hyperlink, and text notifying the
user that "By signing up, you agree to the Term[s] and Conditions
and Privacy Policy." By clicking the "Terms and Conditions," a user
is taken to a webpage containing the terms and conditions of the
user agreement, which include a broad arbitration clause governing
disputes going to the "access, use, or attempted access or use of"
the gateway, "any products sold or distributed through" the
gateway, or "any aspect of the [users'] relationship with" the
gateway. Nifty claimed that by creating three different user
accounts, plaintiff unambiguously accepted the Terms and Conditions
on different occasions, and necessarily manifested his assent to
the arbitration clause.
The court found that the parties had entered into a valid agreement
to arbitrate, as Nifty's sign-up page contained "reasonably
conspicuous notice of the arbitration agreement." Among other
things, the court looked to the fact that the account sign-up
webpage stated that, "[b]y signing up, you agree to the Terms and
Conditions and Privacy Policy" and the title "Terms and Conditions"
is directly above the "sign up" button in blue, underlined, and
hyperlinks to the Nifty Terms. Moreover, the paragraph titled
"Disputes" in the Terms themselves is in large font and begins by
instructing users to "[p]lease read the following agreement to
arbitrate . . . in its entirety." The court explained that because
a "reasonably prudent [ ] user would have constructive notice of
[Nifty's] terms," plaintiff had inquiry notice of those terms. In
reaching this conclusion, the court found that the Nifty account
sign-up page "mirrors that in" Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d
66 (2d. Cir. 2017), which the Second Circuit deemed valid.
Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that his pursuit
of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) claims somehow
preempted the invocation of the arbitration clause, noting that
"the PSLRA does not mention arbitration, [and so] the Court
declines to intuit a statutory preemption -- over the parties'
agreement -- where one does not explicitly exist."
Set Capital LLC v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, 18-cv-2268, 2024 WL
895084 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2024)
Court denies renewed motion for class certification, finding lack
of lead plaintiff to represent third, smaller subclass meant
uncertainty as to adequate representation of all class members.
Plaintiffs brought this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and purchasers, acquirers, sellers, and redeemers of
VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes (XIV
Notes), alleging violations of the federal securities laws. In
early 2023 the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify one
proposed subclass and denied certification of two other subclasses,
without prejudice to renew. In this recent order, the court denied
both defendants' motion for reconsideration of the certification
decision and plaintiffs' renewed motion for certification.
By way of background, plaintiffs previously moved to certify three
classes, styled as a "Misrepresentation Class," a "Manipulation
Class," and a "Securities Act Class." Plaintiffs also moved to
appoint four Lead Plaintiffs as class representatives and to
appoint co-lead counsel as class counsel. The court certified the
Securities Act Class but denied certification as to the other two,
finding that only this subclass satisfied the requirements of Rule
23 and rejecting the argument that "individualized proof of
tracing" predominated over the class-wide issues. See Set Capital
LLC v. Credit Suisse Group AG, 2023 WL 2535175 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16,
2023). As to the other subclasses, the court found that plaintiffs'
theories of liability were in direct conflict with each other,
precluding certification.
In this new order, the court denied the motion to reconsider (as
defendants did not identify any controlling decisions that the
court overlooked or other clear error) and denied the renewed
motion for class certification, notwithstanding plaintiffs'
argument that the additional separate and independent
representatives and counsel obviate the court's concerns from the
original motion concerning adequacy and typicality. In so ruling,
the court looked to the Second Circuit's decision in In re Literary
Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litigation, 654 F.3d 242 (2d
Cir. 2011), where the court rejected a single class settlement that
divided claims into three categories, with the class
representatives holding combinations of all three categories of
claims. This was because the third category was the weakest and
received the least generous damages, so the interest of the class
members with only claims in the third category "were antagonistic
to the others on a matter of critical importance -- how the money
would be distributed."
Similarly in this case, while the new proposed class representative
was only a member of the so-called "Manipulation Class," the lead
plaintiffs were members of both this class and the
"Misrepresentation Class," such that they would be "functionally
indifferent to whether damages are allocated to Defendants' alleged
inflationary representations or deflationary manipulations." This
rendered them inadequate advocates for "those holding only
misrepresentations claims" as they "theoretically [could be]
interested exclusively in maximizing the compensation for [] one
category of claim" and thus could chose to sacrifice their
misrepresentation claims "in exchange for more favorable
compensation" on their manipulation claims. While the court
recognized that the number of misrepresentation-only plaintiffs may
be few, and many – if not most – individuals could fall into
both classes, it still had to independently ask whether the
interests of "all class members" were adequately represented. And
ultimately, "[w]ithout a lead plaintiff to represent and advocate
for the misrepresentation-only claimants, the Court cannot find
this standard is met."
The renewed class certification motion was denied without prejudice
to refiling with alternative class representation. Alternatively,
the court held that "if Plaintiffs elect to proceed with the same
class representatives, Plaintiffs shall provide evidence to support
their statement that the pool of misrepresentation-only plaintiffs
is ‘de minimis, if they exist at all.'"
Fourth Circuit
Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 95 F.4th
181 (4th Cir. 2024)
Fourth Circuit reverses denial of motion to dismiss on appeal under
Rule 23(f), and thus vacates certification of class seeking damages
for COVID-19 losses.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against State Farm seeking
a declaratory judgment that the "virus exclusion" in its business
interruption policy did not exclude coverage for COVID-19 losses,
and seeking damages for breach of contract and breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing. State Farm moved to dismiss those
claims because plaintiff had not alleged any "accidental direct
physical loss" to the covered property as required by the policy,
but the district court denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss,
concluding that the term was ambiguous. The district court then
certified a class of all persons or entities in Virginia who were
denied coverage under the policy and endorsement held by
plaintiff.
The Fourth Circuit accepted State Farm's interlocutory appeal of
the class certification decision under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f). State Farm urged the panel to review the district
court's motion to dismiss decision under the doctrine of pendent
appellate jurisdiction. Although the panel recognized that it
exercises pendent appellate jurisdiction sparingly, it held that
the denial of the motion to dismiss and the class certification
order were "so interconnected" as to require concurrent review
because the class certification decision was guided by the district
court's prior holding regarding the meaning of "direct physical
loss."
As to the merits of the appeal, the panel found that the district
court's interpretation of "direct physical loss" was legal error
because, consistent with the decision in Uncork & Create LLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., 27 F.4th 926 (4th Cir. 2022), that term was
not ambiguous and requires "present or impending material
destruction or material harm," which the executive orders mandating
closure during COVID-19 did not do. Because plaintiff's claims were
subject to dismissal, the panel found there was no basis for class
certification.
Career Counseling, Inc. v. AmeriFactors Fin. Grp., LLC, 91 F.4th
202 (4th Cir. 2024)
Fourth Circuit reaffirms ascertainability requirement and affirms
denial of certification of TCPA class.
In this Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the
proposed class of 59,000 fax recipients did not meet the
ascertainability requirement for class certification because there
was no efficient way to determine which recipients used a
"telephone facsimile machine" (which is encompassed by the TCPA) as
opposed to an "online fax service" (which is not encompassed by the
TCPA).
The Fourth Circuit rejected plaintiff's invitation that the court
abandon its prior precedents recognizing that Rule 23 contains an
implicit ascertainability requirement. The panel concluded that
other panels of the Fourth Circuit have acknowledged and enforced
an ascertainability requirement, and it has no power to overrule
those panels.
The panel agreed with the district court's interpretation of the
TCPA, finding that the plain language of the definition of
"stand-alone fax machine" in the TCPA only encompasses unsolicited
advertisements sent to a "telephone facsimile machine," not to an
"online fax service." That definition was consistent with Federal
Communications Commission interpretations of the TCPA, although the
panel declined to rule whether the agency's interpretations were
entitled to deference.
Plaintiff contended that even under this definition the evidence
submitted to the district court proved that the class of "telephone
facsimile machine" recipients was ascertainable. Specifically,
plaintiff sent subpoenas to the telephone carriers for each of the
59,000 recipients of the advertisement and received responses
demonstrating that more than 20,000 of the recipients were not –
and 206 recipients were – online fax services. Defendant
submitted evidence, including a declaration from a telephone
carrier, showing there was no way to determine whether the
recipient was using a "telephone facsimile machine" as opposed to
an "online fax service." The district court found the defendant's
evidence more credible, and the Fourth Circuit concluded that
decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Fifth Circuit
Cheapside Mins., Ltd. v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P., 94 F.4th 492
(5th Cir. 2024)
Fifth Circuit reverses district court's interpretation of the place
of "principal injury" prong in CAFA's local-controversy exception.
Over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Devon
Energy and other entities in Texas state court, alleging
underpayment of royalties for hydrocarbon production. Devon Energy
removed the case to the Southern District of Texas under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs moved to remand under CAFA's
"local controversy" exception, as more than two-thirds of the class
members were Texas citizens. The district court agreed and ordered
remand to state court. Devon Energy appealed the remand order to
the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals began by analyzing
the local-controversy exception's requirement that "principal
injuries resulting from the alleged conduct" be "incurred in the
State in which the action was originally filed." Plaintiffs argued
their injuries were incurred in Texas because that was where Devon
Energy failed to satisfy its obligations. But Devon Energy argued
that plaintiffs sustained their alleged injuries where they reside,
and the Fifth Circuit agreed. Even though more than two-thirds of
the putative class members were Texas citizens, not all were. As
such, some plaintiffs sustained their injuries outside of Texas,
and the local-controversy exception did not apply. Rejecting
plaintiffs' interpretation of "principal injury" as meaning the
place where "most" of plaintiffs had been injured, the court ruled
that the "principal injuries" had to apply to "the entire class,
not just a subset of it." The Fifth Circuit reasoned that "to
remand a case to state court when some plaintiffs sustained the
principal injuries outside of the forum state would essentially
rewrite the statute, which we may not do." The Court of Appeals
thus vacated the district court's ruling and remanded the case to
the district court.
Seventh Circuit
Mullen v. Butler, 91 F.4th 1243 (7th Cir. 2024)
Sanctions affirmed against defendants for interfering with
class-notice process by communicating directly with class members
and urging them to opt out.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendants alleging
that defendants fraudulently concealed claims of sexual abuse made
against defendants. Plaintiff asserted that had she and other
members of the class known about the allegations, they would not
have participated in any volleyball programs associated with
defendants. The district court certified the class, then
subsequently granted summary judgment to defendants.
After the class was certified, but before summary judgment was
granted to defendants, defendants communicated with potential class
members urging them to opt out of the class action. This included
repeatedly communicating that the case was likely to be dismissed
if parents opt out of the lawsuit. In a status hearing, counsel for
defendants denied that defendants had been communicating with class
members regarding opting out. When the district court questioned
counsel regarding defendants' communications in a subsequent status
hearing, she admitted that defendants had engaged in inappropriate
communications with class members and asserted that while she had
received at least one of those communications before the prior
status hearing, she had not read it. The district court imposed a
civil sanction of $5,000 against each of the defendants and
$20,998.10 in attorneys' fees against defendants, and reprimanded
counsel for defendants – ordering that she complete twice the
required amount of professional responsibility hours for her next
continuing legal education cycle.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed these sanctions, noting that the
Eleventh Circuit has held that where "the class and the class
opponent are involved in an ongoing business relationship,
communications from the class opponent to the class may be
coercive." As a result, the Seventh Circuit found that the district
court had not abused its discretion. The Seventh Circuit found that
the attorneys' fees award was appropriate, as those fees would not
have been incurred but for the misconduct. The court also found
that the civil penalty was appropriate to penalize unacceptable
litigation conduct. The Seventh Circuit found that it did not have
jurisdiction to address the sanctions against defendants' counsel,
as the notice of appeal did not demonstrate that she intended to
appeal her sanctions.
Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC, 93 F.4th 1014 (7th Cir. 2024)
Seventh Circuit affirms district court ruling denying motion to
compel arbitration and holding that children are not bound by
arbitration agreements entered into by their parents.
Defendant offers DNA test kits whereby individuals collect their
saliva, which defendant analyzes and returns genealogical and
health information to the individual. Individuals using this
service must agree to defendant's terms. The plaintiffs here are
minors whose guardians agreed to the terms and submitted
plaintiffs' genetic material.
The Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs were not express parties
to the terms to which their guardians agreed. Nothing in the
relevant terms suggested the guardians were agreeing to them on
behalf of their children; rather, the terms explicitly stated that
they were personal to the signatory. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit
held that plaintiffs cannot be bound as closely related parties or
third-party beneficiaries unless there is an express provision in
the contract identifying the plaintiffs as third-party
beneficiaries by name or description.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit addressed whether direct benefits
estoppel could provide a mechanism for binding plaintiffs to the
terms where the only benefit flowing to plaintiffs is that the
analysis of their DNA is available through their guardians. The
court held that because it is a potential benefit flowing from
plaintiffs' relationship with one of the parties to the terms, not
a direct benefit, it is not sufficiently direct to trigger direct
benefits estoppel.
Campos v. Tubi, Inc., No. 23-CV-3843, 2024 WL 496234 (E.D. Ill.
Feb. 8, 2024)
Plaintiff did not form a valid contract by registering to use
defendant's online video streaming platform because defendant did
not reasonably communicate existence of terms.
Plaintiff brought a class action complaint alleging a violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act. Defendant moved to compel
arbitration based on the terms of use and, in the alternative,
moved to dismiss. Plaintiff registered with defendant on her phone
through defendant's Android application. The court cited the
factors set forth in Domer v. Menard, Inc., No. 22-CV-444-JDP, 2023
WL 4762593 at *3 (W.D. Wis. July 26, 2023), for determining whether
a reasonable person would have realized they were assenting to the
terms of use:
(1) whether there is a clear prompt directing the purchaser to
read the terms;
(2) the size of the prompt;
(3) use of a bold font or contrasting colors;
(4) the visual clarity of the website's layout;
(5) whether the user can see the link to the terms without
having to scroll; and
(6) the spatial proximity between the notice and the mechanism
for manifesting assent, such as a purchase button.
The court held that the defendant did not establish that it
reasonably communicated the existence of its terms of use to
plaintiff because the prompt to assent to the terms was in the
smallest font on the screen, almost at the bottom of the screen,
and in a gray font that contrasted poorly with the background. The
court specifically noted that because the prompt referred to
"registering" and each button indicated that a user could "continue
with" email, Google, or Facebook, a user would not know that it was
agreeing to the terms of use by clicking one of the above buttons.
In addition, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss,
holding that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a
Video Privacy Protection Act claim where she alleged defendant
collected personally identifiable information about its users,
collected users' viewing history, and shared that data to target
ads to users.
Castiel v. Dyson, Inc., No. 23 C 3477, 2024 WL 580061 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 13, 2024)
Written warranty flatly contradicted plaintiff's allegations that
it violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging a violation of
the anti-tying provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Plaintiff asserted that defendant's warranty required using only
authorized repair services and authorized replacement parts for
non-warranty service and maintenance. The court, however, reviewed
the text of the warranty itself and found that the cited provisions
simply dictated what was not covered (e.g., faults caused by the
use of unauthorized parts or repair services) and what services
defendant would offer (e.g., work carried out by authorized repair
services). None of the cited provisions conditioned the warranty on
the use of authorized parts or services.
The court specifically noted that plaintiff never alleged that
anyone speaking on behalf of defendant told her that her warranty
was voided. Instead, plaintiff simply asserted that defendant would
have denied any covered claim that plaintiff might have made and,
as a result, the product was worth less at the time of purchase.
The court referred to this theory as "speculation" and "conjecture
in the extreme." While the court found that plaintiff pleaded an
injury sufficient to assert Article III standing because the type
of price premium injury she asserted was concrete and
particularized, the court held that plaintiff failed to plead that
she actually suffered such an injury. In reaching that conclusion,
the court noted that plaintiff failed to adequately allege that she
relied on implicit representations about the lawfulness of the
manufacturer's warranty in purchasing the product.
Sloan v. Anker Innovations Ltd., No. 22 C 7174, 2024 WL 935426
(N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2024)
Plaintiffs stated a claim under Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act related to home security cameras and video doorbells
that apply a facial recognition program.
Plaintiffs asserted claims including under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and the Federal Wiretap Act based on
defendants' line of home security cameras and video doorbells that
use facial recognition software to allow users to identify who is
in view of the camera-equipped devices. Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants' devices upload thumbnail images to defendants' cloud
storage and allow access to unencrypted video streams.
The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under the Wiretap Act,
holding that because plaintiffs used defendants' applications to
access the video, defendants were a party to the communications
and, as a result, did not violate the Wiretap Act.
The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Illinois plaintiffs'
BIPA claims, holding that photographs used by a system that can
take a geometric scan of a person qualify as biometric data. The
court did, however, dismiss all non-Illinois residents' BIPA claims
because BIPA does not have any extraterritorial effect and the
non-Illinois plaintiffs had not alleged any facts tying their
transactions or any other related conduct to Illinois.
The court also denied defendants' motion to dismiss various state
statutory claims with regard to statements relating to the storage
and streaming of data, facial recognition, and encryption.
Defendants argued these statements were true – while plaintiffs
alleged they were false. While the court held that defendants may
ultimately prove that the statements were true at some later date,
on a motion to dismiss plaintiffs are simply required to allege
that these statements may have misled a reasonable consumer.
Land v. IU Credit Union, 226 N.E.3d 194 (Ind. 2024)
Indiana Supreme Court held that customer did not assent to
amendment to account agreements containing an agreement to
arbitrate and waive class action status.
Defendant sent plaintiff an addendum to her account agreement and
online services agreement which would have permitted either party
to demand arbitration for the resolution of any dispute and would
have waived the right to initiate or join a class action lawsuit.
This addendum purported to become effective unless plaintiff opted
out within 30 days. On this basis, defendant moved to compel
arbitration and enforce the waiver of class action status. The
circuit court granted the motion to compel arbitration and
plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed
and remanded, holding that plaintiff did not consent to the
addendum.
The Court specifically held that while defendant provided plaintiff
with reasonable notice of its offer to amend the original
agreements, plaintiff's silence and inaction did not constitute
assent to that offer under Section 69 of the Restatement (Second)
of Contracts. While defendant argued that plaintiff's assent should
be found under Section 3 of the Restatement of Consumer Contracts,
the Indiana Supreme Court held that because defendant repeatedly
argued that these were bilateral agreements, the Restatement of
Consumer Contracts – which applies to unilateral contracts –
did not apply.
Eighth Circuit
Chicoine v. Wellmark, Inc., 2 N.W.3d 276 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 2024)
Iowa Supreme Court affirms denial of class certification due to
lack of expert testimony or viable model to address threshold
classwide issue.
Chiropractor-plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging the
health insurer and claims administrator defendant violated the Iowa
Competition Law based on defendant's administrative services
agreements governing health care benefits. Plaintiffs alleged these
agreements prevented self-funded employers from competing
independently, negatively impacting chiropractor profits.
Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of approximately 1,300 Iowa
chiropractors. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the denial of class certification.
For the plaintiffs to establish their antitrust claim, they were
required to identify the defendant's anticompetitive practice and
show how they were in a worse position because of the defendant's
practice. In their class certification papers, the plaintiffs
failed to offer any expert testimony or model for proving, on a
classwide basis, how all class members would have been better off
but for the defendant's agreements. The defendant, on the other
hand, raised significant individualized issues to assess this
element of the plaintiff's case, including, among others,
differences in insurance rates, coverage gaps, differences in
patient factors, and the impact of the chiropractors' location in
the state. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the district court
that the plaintiffs' inability to provide any support for a
classwide resolution on this threshold liability issue doomed their
request for class certification. The court also rejected the
plaintiffs' attempt to revive a prior theory of liability that did
not present the same individualized issues to save their class
certification claims. Because the plaintiffs had previously
abandoned this prior theory to survive the responsive pleading
stage, the court confirmed that the plaintiffs were judicially
estopped from relying on the theory at this late stage of the
case.
Ninth Circuit
Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s., 93 F.4th 442 (9th Cir. 2024)
Ninth Circuit reverses denial of dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction over two foreign web operator defendants because
defendants' use of "content delivery networks" located within the
United States to better serve their U.S.-based users showed express
targeting of forum.
Plaintiff Jane Doe brought a putative class action against 11
foreign-based defendants for violations of federal and California
law based on their alleged participation or distribution of online
videos depicting sexual abuse or child pornography posted on
defendants' pornography websites. Analyzing personal jurisdiction
over numerous foreign-based entities under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(k)(2), which analyzes whether the defendant is subject
to jurisdiction "in any state's court" and not just the forum state
in particular, the district court dismissed the claims against the
foreign defendants because plaintiff had not shown defendant had
"minimum contacts" with the relevant forum, the United States.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal. Applying the "effects"
test first espoused in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), the
court concluded that WGCZ and NKL, the two Czech-domiciled
defendants who operated the pornography websites, "expressly aimed"
those websites into the United States. The court recognized that
the maintenance of a passive website alone could not satisfy
Calder's express aiming prong. In evaluating whether the foreign
defendants' operation of the website went beyond passively
benefiting from U.S. users and instead constituted the sort of
targeting or differentiation of the forum market required to show
express aiming, the Ninth Circuit focused particularly on
defendants' utilization of content delivery networks (CDNs) that
allowed improved speed and functionality of their website in the
United States, in turn evidencing differentiated targeting of the
U.S. market. Beyond the defendants actively tailoring the website
to their U.S.-based audience, evidence also showed that U.S. users
accounted for 12% to 19% of all traffic on the websites, making the
U.S. market a substantial component of defendants' financial
success.
The Ninth Circuit also saw defendants' forum-related activities
within the United States – the operation and active promotion of
the website towards their American market – sufficiently related
to plaintiff's publication-based claims under Calder's second
prong.
Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 87 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023)
Ninth Circuit limits Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc. and
clarifies ‘express aiming' for purposes of personal jurisdiction
in the context of interactive websites.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against online payment
processor Shopify for several privacy violations based on
allegations that it obtained his personal data, including his
payment information entered onto Shopify's platform, without his
permission for use by Shopify's merchant partners. Plaintiff
asserted Shopify had expressly aimed its conduct into California
(the forum state) and was thus subject to personal jurisdiction in
the forum. He relied on Shopify's brick-and-mortar store in Los
Angeles, its California fulfillment center, and its contracts with
California merchants as activity directed at the forum. The Ninth
Circuit, however, found these activities were not relevant to its
analysis because plaintiff's injuries were based on Shopify's
extraction of his personal information and had nothing to do with
Shopify's brick-and-mortar operations in California or Shopify's
contracts with California merchants. Because plaintiff would have
suffered the same injury regardless of whether he purchased items
from a California merchant or was physically present in California
when he did so, only Shopify's collection and use of plaintiff's
data was relevant to the court's personal jurisdiction analysis.
The Ninth Circuit next addressed plaintiff's reliance on Shopify's
online payment platform's interactivity (i.e., users' ability to
make purchases through the platform), which plaintiff argued
sufficed to show express aiming. Addressing the scope of its
earlier decision Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th
1085 (9th Cir. 2023), which affirmed personal jurisdiction over a
foreign defendant in a trademark infringement case where the
defendant's interactive website permitted online sales and resulted
in the shipment of allegedly infringing products into California,
the Ninth Circuit made plain that the holding of Herbal Brands –
that the interactive nature of a defendant's website can establish
express aiming into the forum – is limited to claims arising from
a defendant's sale of a physical product to a consumer in the forum
state via an interactive website and not claims arising from the
extraction of consumer data. Requiring plaintiff to show "something
more" besides the fact that the online platform was interactive,
the Ninth Circuit found Shopify's online platform lacked a
California-specific focus since it did not actively target
California, and personal jurisdiction was thus lacking.
Mikulsky v. Noom, Inc., No. 3:23-CV-00285-H-MSB, 2024 WL 251171
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024)
Court dismisses complaint for lack of Article III standing because
plaintiff did not allege that any of the allegedly sensitive
information collected from her by tracking technology embedded on a
health and wellness platform could be connected to her personal
identity.
After her original complaint was dismissed for lack of Article III
standing with leave to amend, plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint on behalf of a putative California class pleading
claims under section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA) and for intrusion upon seclusion and invasion of privacy.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant, an online wellness platform,
allegedly used, without user consent, third-party tracking
technology to collect the allegedly sensitive personal and health
information she entered into a survey. The survey specifically
requested her current weight, ideal weight, sex, gender identity,
and age and to answer questions about her fitness goals, eating and
exercise habits, medical and family history, mental health, home
environment, marital status, weight loss motivations and struggles,
and personal lifestyle, information plaintiff claimed was
actionable "personal health information" under the CIPA. While
plaintiff corrected her original complaint's omission of the
specific types or categories of allegedly personal information
collected from her survey answers by third-party "session replay"
software, the court ultimately found these categories of
information, even if sensitive, did not give rise to a concrete
injury sufficient to confer standing. Rejecting the argument that
the bare assertion of a statutory violation could suffice under
recent Supreme Court precedent, the court found no cognizable harm
based solely on the collection and disclosure of the specific
health information plaintiff entered into a survey where she did
not also allege that any of the survey information could in any way
be connected to her identity, like her name, credit card details,
or other identifiers. Because the information collected did not
give rise to anything resembling a protectible privacy interest,
the court dismissed for lack of Article III standing and found
leave to further amend futile.
Doe v. Amgen, Inc., No. 223CV07448MCSSSC, 2024 WL 575248 (C.D. Cal.
Jan. 29, 2024)
Plaintiff failed to state California statutory privacy claims where
she did not allege defendant's use of third-party advertising
pixels on its website resulted in the collection and disclosure of
her personal information.
Plaintiff Jane Doe brought a putative class action against drug
manufacturer Amgen after allegedly visiting Amgen's website and
signing up for the company's SupportPlus program, which assisted
patients taking the drug Enbrel. Plaintiff alleged a search
engine's tracking pixels were present on Amgen's website when she
re-enrolled several times between 2020 through 2022. She further
alleged she was required to input her "personal information" and
verify her use of Enbrel during those visits. She also claimed
other tracking pixels were present on Amgen's website. Plaintiff
asserted claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California
Unfair Competition Law, and the Federal Electronic Communications
Privacy Act.
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim,
finding it insufficient for plaintiff to plead conclusory
allegations that the website-operator defendant violated her
privacy without offering any facts that information was collected
from her personally. Plaintiff's overarching theory of her case,
which grounded all her claims, was that Amgen collected her
"personal information" and improperly disclosed it to third-party
adtech software providers without her consent. But plaintiff failed
to explain with salient facts how Amgen transmitted her data to
these third parties. Rather than analyze each of the claims
pleaded, the court summarily dismissed for failure to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, requiring a complaint to contain
"sufficient factual content" to state a claim for relief.
Tenth Circuit
Roig v. Alder Holdings, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-721-TC-JCB, 2024 WL 664717
(D. Utah Feb. 16, 2024)
Court indicates right to FLSA collective action is waivable when
combined with arbitration provision, an issue not yet decided by
the Tenth Circuit.
Plaintiff alleged that Alder Holdings, a home security door-to-door
sales company, had misclassified its field service technicians
(FSTs) as independent contractors, thus denying these employees
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Plaintiff sought certification of a "Nationwide Collective" under
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Alder moved to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to strike any
reference to a nationwide collective on the ground that plaintiff
waived his right to participate in or be a member of any class or
collective action. Alder's motion was based on a sales finishing
representative (SFR) agreement dated Jan. 16, 2023, signed by
plaintiff, in which plaintiff purportedly waived this right. Alder
also submitted a declaration from one of Alder's managers attesting
that plaintiff was hired to work as an FST and that he had signed
an SFR agreement. In response, plaintiff presented an employment
letter dated Feb. 9, 2023, which offered him a position as an FST.
He contended that this document, which was signed after the SFR
agreement and specifically referred to his employment as an FST,
called into question whether the waiver in the SFR agreement
remained, or was ever binding in the first place.
The court noted it is not yet settled in the Tenth Circuit whether
the right to participate in a collective action is waivable, and it
thus analyzed other circuit courts' positions on the issue of
waivability of the FLSA's collective action right. After
summarizing the split in authority, the court concluded that, based
on a 2018 Supreme Court decision, the FLSA collective action right
is waivable at least when combined with an arbitration clause.
Nevertheless, it found the Supreme Court has not yet squarely
addressed whether the FLSA collective action right is waivable when
it is not tied to an arbitration provision. As a result, it was
necessary for the court to determine which documents governed the
employment relationship between Alder and plaintiff since plaintiff
had raised a genuine issue of material fact about whether the SFR
agreement governed his employment with Alder. Limited, expedited
discovery into the circumstances surrounding plaintiff's purported
agreement was required.
F.S. v. Captify Health, Inc., No. 23-1142-DDC-BGS, 2024 WL 1282437
(D. Kan. Mar. 26, 2024)
Court holds that merely being a victim of a data breach is
insufficient to sustain an Article III injury in fact.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Kansas state court
alleging his personal data was compromised in defendant Captify
Health's data breach and asserting seven tort and contract claims.
Specifically, plaintiff alleged Captify flagrantly disregarded his
privacy and property rights by intentionally, willfully, and
recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions to protect
plaintiff's personal health information and personally identifying
information from unauthorized disclosure. After Captify removed the
state court action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act, the court sua sponte raised the issue of whether it had
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case and whether plaintiff
had adequately alleged his standing to sue in federal court,
focusing on Article III's injury-in-fact requirement. The court
concluded that plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury and, as
a result, he lacked standing, and therefore remanded the case to
state court, dismissing defendant's motion to dismiss.
The court began by acknowledging that the Tenth Circuit has not yet
reached the issue of whether merely being subject to a data breach
suffices as an injury in fact, or whether a plaintiff must further
show the breach put them at an increased risk of identity theft or
fraud following the unauthorized disclosure of their data, such as
by alleging their data was intentionally targeted or obtained by a
third party or was in any way misused. The court found that
plaintiff had not alleged his data was misused at all, i.e., that
there were any fraudulent charges or unauthorized access of his
bank accounts or that his sensitive data had been sold on the dark
web. Likewise, the court rejected plaintiff's "benefit of the
bargain" theory for showing a concrete harm, finding the alleged
overpayment of medical services has been rejected by the court
numerous times. While recognizing that the nature of the specific
data compromised here (plaintiff's Social Security number, name,
and date of birth) was one factor that favored plaintiff, the court
ultimately concluded this could not overcome the absence of facts
suggesting this data would imminently be misused. At most,
plaintiff alleged a speculative risk of a future harm such as
identity theft, which alone cannot confer Article III standing.
Eleventh Circuit
Santos v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 90 F.4th 1144
(11th Cir. 2024)
Eleventh Circuit reverses denial of class certification in Fair
Credit Reporting Act case, finding Rule 23(b)(c)'s predominance
requirement could be met because the Act does not require
plaintiffs to show actual damages.
Individual consumers filed a class action complaint against
consumer reporting agency Experian Information Solutions, alleging
claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that a mistake in
how Experian processed certain data led to errors affecting certain
individuals' credit scores. After close of discovery, plaintiffs
moved to certify the class. The district court denied class
certification, reasoning that section 1681n(a)(1)(A) of the FCRA
required all class members to prove they suffered actual damages,
and so individual questions would predominate over common issues
such that plaintiffs could not meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement.
Plaintiffs appealed. In a per curiam opinion on panel rehearing,
the Eleventh Circuit found the district court abused its discretion
in denying class certification. The Eleventh Circuit noted that
section 1681n(a)(1)(A) of the FCRA provided two options for
recovery: (1) recovering damages a plaintiff actually suffers, and
(2) recovering statutory damages of $100 to $1,000. The Eleventh
Circuit interpreted section 1681n(a)(1)(A) to mean the second
option did not require a plaintiff to show they suffered any actual
damages, concluding the district court erred in finding otherwise
and vacating the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit joined all
other circuits that have addressed the issue. Because the parties
made additional arguments that the district court did not address,
the Eleventh Circuit remanded the matter back to the district court
to consider all of Experian's arguments against class
certification.
Smith v. Miorelli, 93 F.4th 1206 (11th Cir. 2024)
Eleventh Circuit vacates and remands district court's approval of
class settlement where district court considered value of
injunctive relief in analysis, notwithstanding that the named
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue injunctive
relief.
Three plaintiffs initiated separate putative class actions against
sunglass manufacturer Costa Del Mar., Inc., alleging violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act. Each plaintiff alleged they purchased
sunglasses backed by lifetime warranties requiring Costa to repair
their sunglasses either free-of-charge or for a nominal fee.
Plaintiffs alleged that, despite the warranty, they were charged
significant amounts when they had their sunglasses repaired. None
of the plaintiffs alleged they were likely to suffer future
injury.
After extensive litigation in all three lawsuits, one plaintiff
moved to file an amended complaint to facilitate a settlement
agreement that would resolve the claims in all three cases. The
parties represented that the settlement resulted in over $60
million of value to the class in the form of product vouchers,
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief requiring Costa to change
consumer-facing marketing materials and product packaging. The
district court deemed the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate
because it was worth approximately $32 million – with the value
of the vouchers totaling $27.2 million and the value of the
injunctive relief totaling $5 million. The district court
considered, but ultimately overruled, objections to the
settlement.
The objectors appealed the district court's approval of the
settlement. The Eleventh Circuit found that none of the named
plaintiffs alleged any threat of future injury, such that the
plaintiffs did not have Article III standing to pursue injunctive
relief. Based on this, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district
court's order approving the settlement, explaining that "[b]ecause
the district court lacked the power to grant the injunctive relief
in the parties' settlement agreement, it abused its discretion by
considering the injunctive relief's value in its determination that
the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate."
Duran v. Bragg Live Food Prods., No. 23-CV-60812, 2024 WL 756131
(S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2024)
Florida district court rules defendant is entitled to production of
class action settlement to determine whether plaintiff is an
adequate class representative.
Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Bragg Live Food
Products alleging a violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and a claim for unjust enrichment.
Following a discovery dispute, Bragg filed a motion to compel
production of the settlement agreement from another case involving
the same named plaintiff and similar FDUTPA claims against a
different corporate defendant who produced similar food products.
Plaintiff had produced other documents involving the previous class
action but refused to produce the settlement agreement.
The district court granted the motion to compel, determining that
Bragg was entitled to production of the class settlement agreement
because the case involved (1) the same attorneys as plaintiffs'
counsel, (2) the same plaintiff as a named party, and (3) similar
FDUTPA allegations concerning a similar product. The district court
specifically noted that the court must "undertake a stringent and
continuing examination of the adequacy of representation,"
especially where the class representative has previous associations
with class counsel. [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 ***