/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240718.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 18, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 144 Headlines 1 BEAUTY US: Web Sites Not Accessible to Blind, Competello Says 21ST MORTGAGE: French Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. 3M CO: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Bowling Suit Says 3M CO: Mauldin Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Ulrick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: White Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Zynda Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama AAA CAB: Medical Transport Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Use ALCOA USA: Parties Seeks Class Cert Deadlines Extension AMPED FITNESS: Hindi Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices APPLE INC: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Smartphone Sale Monopoly ASIAN KING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Layne Says ASR GROUP: Kurtz Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ASR GROUP: Redner's Market Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ASR GROUP: Union LLC Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ASR GROUP: Vicky Enterprises Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ASR GROUP: Wakefern Food Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ATRION CORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Nordson Corp B BRAUN MEDICA: Removes Antiporta Suit to C.D. Calif. BALDOR SPECIALTY: Settlement Class Certified in Jimenez Suit BASSETT SERVICES: Hopkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA BEAUTY SCRIPTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Says BELCARRA-II INC: Matsiko Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA BENEFICIENT INC: Continues to Defend GWG Holdings Suit in Texas BENEFICIENT INC: Continues to Defend Scura Class Suit in Texas BERLIN FIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Braniecki Suit Alleges BLINK CHARGING: Settlement Class Gets Certified in Bush Lawsuit BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Kerr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA BRIAN MARKETING: Anthony Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BROTHER ASIAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Layne Suit Says C.A.A.I.R.: Parties Must Submit Class Cert Scheduling Order CACTUS HOME OFFER: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona CANADA: Court Certifies Class Action Over Immigration Detainees CAPITAL ONE BANK: Kelly Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Data From Cyberattacks, Fowler Alleges CENTENE CORP: Teague Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Bay Area Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Matlick Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHEF V LLC: Harrell Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey COMMONWEALTH BANK: Sets Date for Class Settlement Payments CONNECTICUT COLLEGE: Murray Files Suit in D. Connecticut CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Johnson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Mathisen Alleges Unprotected Personal Info CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Wolf Files Suit in Minn. Dist. CONTINUUM HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bellino Says COVENANT SURGICAL: Gardner Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. CVS PHARMACY: Osterhaus Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Arizona DAVE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lopez Extended to Feb. 14, 2025 DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jordan Says DEVON ENERGY: Wright Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement DISCOVER BANK: Settles Card Misclassification Suit For $1.2-Bil. DRI HEALTHCARE: Kalloghlian Myers Probes Investor Class Action EQUIFAX: Bid for Class Certification Modified to Oct. 14, 2025 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Tenants Sue Over Violation of Rent Control Law ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Morgan Suit Transferred to S.D. New York EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Katsnelson Says EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Data, Franz Says EVOLVE BANK: Webster Sues Over Consumers' Compromised Private Info GEISINGER HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Lopez Says GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lyman Class Suit Over Paint Latent Defect GERALD KATZOFF: All Non-Expert Discovery Due Sept. 27 HOBBY LOBBY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Agostini Says INDIANA MASONIC: Petro Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & IMWL KROGER CO: Boone County Participates in Opioid Class Settlement LATOYA HUGHES: Court Dismisses Dahl Suit w/ Prejudice LIDO DAO: Votes to Appoint Dolphin CL to Respond to Class Suit LINEAR MORTGAGE: Powell Enforces Bankruptcy Court Discharge Order LOCUST GROVE: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property to Disabled LORRAINE SCHWARTZ: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Alleges LYFT INC: WAVs Class Action Suit Underway in New York Court MCGEE AIR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Olney Due Aug. 11, 2025 MDL 2873: Wallin Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Reply Under Seal MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT: Damare Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses MISSISSIPPI: Discovery in Wallace Due April 17, 2025 MOBILITYWARE LLC: Class Settlement Provides Non-Monetary Benefits MUNICIPAL PARKING: Nelson Alleges Illegal Personal Info Collection NIKE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 19 NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Schulte Says OAK HILL: Lacy Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Kent Suit Says PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Klammer Suit Says PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McGinity Alleges PATELCO CREDIT: Schubert Probes Ransomware Attack and Data Breach PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit PEOPLECONNECT INC: Court Stays Nolen Proceedings Pending Appeal PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allen Alleges PIRDIE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Alleges PIZZA CHEF: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL, Essa Alleges POSC PAC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Robbins Due Oct. 11 PREMIUM PARKING: Kutylowski Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Khaner Says RHINO ENTERTAINMENT: Delacruz Sues Over Website's Access Barriers RITMO LATINO: Robles Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under Labor Code ROSEWOOD REALTY: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Petrolino Says SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: All Discovery Due March 11, 2025 SALESFORCE INC: Bleichmar Probes Violations of the Securities Laws SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Derails Mass Arbitration Tactics SEASTAR MEDICAL: Faces Forrest Class Suit in Colorado SEASTAR MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit SELENE FINANCE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by July 22 SOUTH TEXAS ONCOLOGY: Russ Files Suit in W.D. Texas SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Reply STANDARD AUTO: Knuckles Alleges Illegal Predelivery Service Fees STARKA PROPERTIES: Marinelli Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. STERLING JEWELERS: Walter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUBARU CORP: Faces Young Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defect SURMODICS INC: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to GTCR LLC T.R. MOORE: Mosier Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA TARKENTON SENIOR: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Granted TARKENTON SENIOR: Pinn Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid TEAMSNAP INC: Faces Jovel Suit Over "Pay Junk Fees to Play" Scheme TOUCHSTONE BANKSHARES: M&A Probes Merger With First National Corp TOWERS AT PORTSIDE: Faces Association Suit Over Excessive Rent Fees TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND: May Face Suit Over Power Cut Compensation TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Waltrip Suit Claims TWITTER INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Adler Reset to August 26 TYSON FOODS: Sen. Hawley Probes Class Suit Over Plant Closure UNION LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA UNION SECURITY: Bid for Initial Approval of Settlement Withdrawn UNITED STATES: ARIPPA Seeks Review of EPA Final Decision UNITED STATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Phillips Suit Says URBAN ANGLER: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website VALVE CORP: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Reply Papers VESTIS CORP: Faces Hollin Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop VILLAS OF HOLLY: Mitchell Conditional Certification Bid Granted VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Settlement Class Initially Certified WALMART INC: Must Face Unfair Pricing Class Suit, Court Rules WEBHELP AMERICAS: Margolis Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status WEIGEL STORES: Hoyt Seeks to Recover Unpaid Non-OT Wages Under FLSA WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Pay $1-Bil. to Resolve Stockholder Suit WELLS FARGO: Rice, Westervelt Sue Over EFTA Violations WORKFORCE 7: Non-Expert Discovery in Ballast Due Oct. 9 WYNDHAM VACATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Refer Confidential Docs X CORP: Court Dismisses Illinois BIPA Putative Class Action [* Asciolla Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in Anti-Trust Class Suit [*] Victorian Court OK's Solicitor Common Fund Orders in Class Suit ********* 1 BEAUTY US: Web Sites Not Accessible to Blind, Competello Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN COMPETELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1 BEAUTY US, LLC d/b/a BeautyWays d/b/a Karina Products and d/b/a Strands Color, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04909 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://1beauty.us; https://www.beautyways.com; ttps://www.karinaproducts.com; and https://www.strandscolor.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. 1 Beauty US, LLC offers consumers range of hard-to-find, international and specialty products including men and women's skincare, cosmetics, hair care, and beauty accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com 21ST MORTGAGE: French Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL FRENCH is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit Paul French, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 21st Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03528-GLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The suit, which was removed from Circuit Court for Cecil County to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, asserts three causes of action related to 21st Mortgage's charge and collection of Insurance Premiums: (1) declaratory and injunctive relief under Maryland Code Ann., (2) violation of Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC), and (3) breach of contract. On Jan. 12, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On Feb. 2, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify question of law to the Supreme Court of Maryland. On June 7, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify question of law to the Supreme Court of Maryland and granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings through an Order entered by Chief Judge George Levi Russell, III. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant. The Clerk was directed to close the case. The appellate case is captioned Paul French v. 21st Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 24-1584, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 27, 2024. [BN] 3M CO: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Bowling Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BOWLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03760-RMG (D.S.C., June 28, 2024) is an action resulting from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M CO: Mauldin Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MAULDIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manucturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03844-RMG (D.S.C., July 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. The defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Mr. Mauldin is a resident and citizen of Pikeville, Kentucky. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his service as a firefighter with the Island Creek Volunteer Fire Department in Pikeville, Kentucky. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants include ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICALCOMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor in Interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. 3M manufactured, distributed, and sold fluorochemical products and AFFF from the 1960s until 2002.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq. Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq. ASK LLP 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 406-9665 Facsimile: (651) 406-9676 E-mail: tcuneo@askllp.com arobertson@askllp.com 3M COMPANY: Ulrick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Wayne Ulrick, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03297-RMG (D.S.C., May 31, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: White Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar White, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-03312-RMG (D.S.C., May 31, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Zynda Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JAMES ANTHONY ZYNDA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 1-cv-2024-902033, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 1, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00867-AMM to the proceeding. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company in New York, New York. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a technology and industrial business company based in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company based in Missouri. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 322-6000 Facsimile: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com AAA CAB: Medical Transport Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Kovacs, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. AAA Cab Service, Inc., an Arizona corporation, MTM Transit, LLC dba MTM, a Missouri limited liability company, Case No. 3:24-cv-08136-ASB (D. Ariz., July 9, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime for all hours worked exceeding 40 hours in a workweek and unpaid minimum wage, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona wage laws, including Flagstaff Minimum Wage Ordinance. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated non-exempt employees employed as Medical Transport Drivers by Defendant within the State of Arizona who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA. The Defendants jointly employ the Plaintiff and similarly situated Medical Transport Drivers to provide medical transportation services for customers in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: 602-598-4000 E-mail: patti@frankelsyverson.com ty@frankelsyverson.com ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Use --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Steele Gaivin, writing for McKnights Senior Living, reports that a continuing care retirement / life plan community in Chicago is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that it used a timekeeping system that collected and stored biometric data using employees' facial geometry. According to court records, a certified nursing assistant, Bertrand Bayeg, and 366 current or former employees of The Admiral at the Lake allege that the CCRC violated the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act by using "a system that collected and analyzed employees' facial geometry without their knowledge or consent and without a policy for the deletion of such data." Bayeg claims he did not sign a release allowing The Admiral to collect or store his facial geometry during the time he worked at the CCRC, from September 2017 to January 2019. In a 2019 lawsuit, The Admiral asserted that its timekeeping system "only took photographs of employees and section 10 of the Act excludes photographs from the definition of 'biometric identifiers.' The CCRC argued that the company onyx used the photos to ensure that the person using the timekeeping system matched the identity of the employee. The circuit court denied the CCRC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Bayeg filed an amended motion for class certification on behalf of himself and the other 366 plaintiffs in November 2022. "He argued that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues since all class members were subjected to the same non-compliant policies," the Cook County Record reported. The court agreed with Bayeg and colleagues, leading to an appeal from the retirement community, which contends that the plaintiffs are not eligible for class certification. Upon appeal, the case was decided on June 20 in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellate court ruled that the only way for the judges to overrule the lower court's decision would be to find that "a class action is not appropriate." "This ruling means that Bertrand Bayeg will represent hundreds of current and former employees in seeking statutory damages for alleged BIPA violations by The Admiral at the Lake," the Cook County Record reported. Other senior living and care providers have been the target of lawsuits over the Illinois law in recent years, among them Eagle's View Supportive Living and Memory Care, Lifespace Communities, the former Capital Senior Living (now known as Sonida Senior Living) and Senior Lifestyle Corp. [GN] ALCOA USA: Parties Seeks Class Cert Deadlines Extension ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA BRENNAN CAMIRE, CRAIG JEFFERSON, DAVID LYN SHEPHERD, and DANIEL SCHIPPER, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Pension Plan for Certain Salaried Employees of Alcoa USA Corp., the Pension Plan for Certain Hourly Employees of Alcoa USA Corp., and the Alcoa Subsidiaries Merged Inactive Plan, v. ALCOA USA CORPORATION, ALCOA CORPORATION, THE ALCOA BENEFITS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, WILLIAM F. OPLINGER, FIDUCIARY COUNSELORS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1– 5, Case No. 1:24-cv-01062-LLA (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving the following deadlines/schedule: 1. Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on or before Aug. 13, 2024. 2. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on or before Sept. 24, 2024. 3. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on or before Oct. 15, 2024. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court vacate the deadline for any motion for class action determination pending the Parties' submission of a new deadline during the Rule 26(f) scheduling conference. The Defendants were previously granted an extension of time to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Complaint and the Plaintiffs were granted an extension of time to file their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On June 12, 2024, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Alcoa is an industry leader in bauxite, alumina and aluminum products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ptOAPK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Sean E. Soyars, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com ssoyars@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com - and - Lawrence M. Mann, Esq. ALPER & MANN, P.C. 9205 Redwood Avenue Bethesda, MD 20817 Telephone: (202) 298-9191 E-mail: LM.Mann@verizon.net The Defendants are represented by: Nicholas O. Pastan, Esq. Christian J. Pistilli, Esq. Robert Newman, Esq. Laura Flahive Wu, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: cpistilli@cov.com AMPED FITNESS: Hindi Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- JIBRAEL S. HINDI, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. AMPED FITNESS, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-009577 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 10, 2024) alleges that the Defendant claimed, attempted, and/or threatened to enforce a debt when it knew that such debt was not legitimate and/or asserted the existence of some other legal right when it knew that the right did not exist pursuant to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff contends that he wasted time and/or money in evaluating the legal ramifications of Defendant's charge of the Unlawful Fee. The wasted time and/or money spent in evaluating the Legal ramifications of the Defendant's charge of the Unlawful Fee was a concrete harm he suffered. On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is comprised of a fee that Defendant did not have the legal authority to charge or otherwise assess to the Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between Defendant and Plaintiff involving the provision of exercise and health services (the "Subject Service"), says the suit. The Defendant allegedly did not have any contractual or statutory rightto assess or otherwise charge the Unlawful Fee. Further, before Defendant charged the Unlawful Fee, the Plaintiff put Defendant on explicit notice that it had no right to charge the Unlawful fee. The "FCCPA Class" is defined as: (1) all persons with Florida addresses; (2) whereby Defendant claimed, attempted, and/or threatened to enforce a debt when it knew that such debt was not legitimate and/or asserted the existence of some other legal right when it knew that the right did not exist;(3) by charging such persons fees that were not authorized by the underlying contract; (4) during the 24 months preceding the filing of this Complaint. Amped operates fitness assistance business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street,Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Smartphone Sale Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- ZARETH HERNANDEZ, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of those similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07538 (D.N.J., July 3, 2024) alleges that Defendant monopolizes the market for the sale of Smartphones in the United States under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the Clayton Antitrust Act. On March 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice and a number of State Attorneys General filed what has been described as a "landmark" antitrust case against Apple. The DOJ alleges Apple monopolized the markets for Smartphones and Performance Smartphones. The DOJ and the States seek injunctive relief. Plaintiff brings this action as a private attorney general to supplement government enforcement through a private right of Action under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act to recover treble damages and other relief under federal law on behalf of consumers in the United States who purchased iPhones directly from Apple, such as at an Apple Store or the Apple website. Apple has abused and continues to abuse its monopoly through the overarching scheme revealed by the DOJ, with the purpose and the effect of charging and receiving artificially high prices and fees from consumers in the United States. Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests, says the suit. Yet Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple's own financial interest -- such as degrading the security of text messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and business interests, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the substantial injuries he and members of the Class have suffered by reason of the Defendant's continuing violations of law. Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. Melanie Porter, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 23 Forest St. Medford, Massachusetts 02155 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 Facsimile: (702) 983-8673 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us melanie@classactions.us ASIAN KING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Layne Says -------------------------------------------------------- DALE LAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASIAN KING 2827, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04599 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.asiankingny.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Asian King 2827, Inc. is in the food and restaurant business industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ASR GROUP: Kurtz Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stacy Kurtz, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No. 1:24-cv-03968 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02348-JWB-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. 44 South Broadway Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com ASR GROUP: Redner's Market Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Redner's Market, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No. 1:24-cv-03968 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02234-JWB-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Scott Crevier, Esq. Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC 485 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 933-1000 Fax: (646) 494-9648 Email: jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com gasciolla@labaton.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Patrick Mitchell, Esq. Todd Stenerson, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 508-8000 Email: michael.mitchell@aoshearman.com todd.stenerson@aoshearman.com ASR GROUP: Union LLC Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Union LLC doing business as: Union Hospitality Group an Arizona limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Jane Doe Wistisen, Case No. 4:24-cv-00233 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02338-JWB-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Wilkins Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN LEGAL LLC 99 E. Virginia Ave., Ste. 220 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (623) 565-8851 Email: ahoffman@hoffmanlegalaz.com - and - Sarah Sterling Aldridge, Esq. Don Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North P.O Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 Fax: (662) 834-2628 Email: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Anthony Carter, Esq. Jon Anders Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 278-2600 Fax: (310) 278-2640 Email: acarter@tostrudlaw.com jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - John Barton Goplerud, Esq. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Ste 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Phone: (515) 223-4567 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com ASR GROUP: Vicky Enterprises Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Vicky Enterprises Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Jane Doe Wistisen, Case No. 1:24-cv-21386 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02340-JWB-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dayron Silverio, Esq. Matthew Weinshall, Esq. Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 358-2800 Fax: (305) 358-2382 Email: dsilverio@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com pprieto@podhurst.com ASR GROUP: Wakefern Food Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Wakefern Food Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, Commodity Information, Inc., Richard Wistinsen, Case No. 1:24-cv-02840 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02347-JWB-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Sherman-Clayton Act. ASR Group International, Inc. -- https://asr-group.com/ -- is the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane sugar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ira Neil Richards, Esq. TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC 1717 Arch St Ste 3838 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 731-9004 Fax: (215) 731-9044 Email: ira@trrlaw.com - and - Ira N. Glauber, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON LLP 99 Park Avenue, Ste. 320 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (917) 675-4252 Email: iglauber@dilworthlaw.com ATRION CORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Nordson Corp --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Atrion Corp. (Nasdaq: ATRI), relating to its proposed merger with Nordson Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, Atrion Corp. shareholders will receive $460.00 in cash per share of Atrion stock they hold. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/atrion-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] B BRAUN MEDICA: Removes Antiporta Suit to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of NORMA ANTIPORTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B BRAUN MEDICAL, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2024-01371453-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 28, 2024. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05535. The case is assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter and referred to Magistrate John D. Early. B. Braun Medical, Inc. manufactures medical products. The Company offers admixture, dialysis, infusion therapy, duplex and premixed drugs, infusion pump systems, needle-free systems, and pain management products. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: David Jacobs, Esq. Paul DeCamp, Esq. Jaemie Paraon, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 Email: DJacobs@ebglaw.com PDeCamp@ebglaw.com JParaon@ebglaw.com BALDOR SPECIALTY: Settlement Class Certified in Jimenez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDUARDO ANTONIO JIMENEZ DEL ROSARIO, JAYSON MERCADO, and TANEISHA LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BALDOR SPECIALTY FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03580-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered preliminary approval order: 1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All 13,382 individuals who were given notice by Baldor that their PII was potentially compromised in the Data Incident discovered by Baldor in February 2023." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judge presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), the Court finds that giving notice is justified. The Court finds that it will likely be able to approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Aug. 19, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and settlement administration. The Settlement Administrator is directed to perform all tasks the Settlement Agreement requires. The Settlement Administrator’s fees will be paid pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Baldor is an online platform that sells vegetables, fruits, meat and grocery items. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=04ulZ9 at no extra charge.[CC] BASSETT SERVICES: Hopkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Hopkins, Brian Vizcarrondo and Jamie Hargis, Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Bassett Services Heating & Cooling, LLC, and True North Heating, Cooling, & Electric, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03681-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 10, 2024) seeks to collect unpaid overtime and other unpaid compensation under the Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Defendants allegedly jointly suffered and permitted the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to work more than 40 hours per workweek while not compensating them for all such hours worked over 40 at a rate of at least one-and-one half times their regular rates of pay. The Plaintiffs are hourly, non-exempt employee of the Defendants. Mr. Hopkins and Hargis were employed from April of 2023 until July of 2024, while Mr. Vizcarrondo was employed from June of 2023 until July of 2024. They worked as an electrical installer/technician. The Defendants operate a heating/cooling, electrical, plumbing, and related services installation and maintenance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 957-7515 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com BEAUTY SCRIPTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ALI COLAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUTY SCRIPTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04584 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.beautyscriptsny.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Beauty Scripts, Inc. provides beauty and wellness solutions, including medical-grade beauty products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BELCARRA-II INC: Matsiko Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE MATSKO, on her own behalf and those similarly situated v. BELCARRA-II, INC. (dba) VILLAGE WELL PUB, a Florida Profit Corporation and THOMAS KEANEY, Individually, Case No. 0:24-cv-61208 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2024) is a class and collective action complaint against Defendants for failure to pay federal minimum and overtime wages and Florida minimum wages for certain hours worked, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The lawsuit seeks to cure Defendants' blatant and egregious minimum wage violations on behalf of all Bartenders who worked for Defendants within the past five years in Broward County, Florida. The Defendants have allegedly failed to appropriately compensate Bartenders in accordance with the federal minimum wage laws, federal overtime laws, and Florida minimum wage laws, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to stop Defendants from engaging in this unlawful conduct and to vindicate her rights along with the rights of all similarly situated Bartenders who were employed by Defendants within the past five years. The Plaintiff and all similarity situated current and former non-exempt Bartenders are non-exempt service employees and performed related activities for Defendants in Broward County, Florida. The Defendants operate a pub restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-Mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com BENEFICIENT INC: Continues to Defend GWG Holdings Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Beneficient Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the GWG Holdings class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On February 18, 2022, Shirin Bayati and Mojan Kamalvand, on behalf of themselves and of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against GWG, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Murray Holland, its former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Evans, and certain past and present members of the board of directors of GWG and BCG (Roy Bailey, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., David Chavenson, Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, and David H. de Weese). The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act by issuing materially misleading statements in a June 3, 2020 registration statement. On April 20, 2022, GWG filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas. On April 21, 2022, the district court ordered all parties to submit statements by May 5, 2022 on whether the automatic stay in bankruptcy extends to the non-debtor defendants. On April 25, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel. On May 2, 2022, a notice of dismissal was filed, dismissing defendants Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer. On May 12, 2022, the district court extended the bankruptcy stay to all non-debtor defendants, although it permitted a limited modification of lifting of the stay to allow the court to consider the pending lead plaintiff motion. On August 5, 2022, the district court entered an order appointing Thomas Horton and Frank Moore as lead plaintiffs for the putative class. On May 26, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, filed a second class action lawsuit against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. On March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against Ben, certain members of the Board (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of GWG (Jon R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO and Emerson Equity LLC ("Emerson") (the "Scura Action"). The suit alleges that the defendants defrauded GWG investors in connection with the sale of GWG's L Bonds and preferred stock, and it asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG's L Bonds or preferred stock of GWG between December 23, 2017 and April 20, 2022. The suit alleges that (i) the Company, the individual defendants, and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, (ii) that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and (iii) that Emerson violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the lead plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 Cases in order to file a motion in the Northern District of Texas seeking to consolidate the Bayati and Scura Actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Scura Action filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice. On August 16, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the Lead Plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a notice regarding the confirmation of the Debtors' Chapter 11 plan in the GWG bankruptcy, a motion seeking to lift the bankruptcy stay and a motion to consolidate the Bayati and Horton Actions. On September 12, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the Bayati and Horton Actions. The court ordered that the consolidated action shall bear the caption In re GWG Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court lifted the bankruptcy stay and ordered the Lead Plaintiffs to file a new consolidated complaint within 20 days. On October 2, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer (the "Ben Individual Defendants"), Murray T. Holland, Timothy L. Evans, David H. de Weese, Roy W. Bailey, David F. Chavenson, and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and further alleges that the Company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2023. On January 4, 2024, defendants Murray Holland, Roy Bailey, Tim Evans, Whitley Penn, David Chavenson and David H. de Weese filed motions to dismiss. The Lead Plaintiffs' responded to the various motions to dismiss on February 20, 2024, and the defendants (other than Whitley Penn) filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on March 21, 2024. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation. On October 27, 2023, David Scura filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against Brad K. Heppner, Jon R. Sabes, Steven F. Sabes, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, the Company and FOXO, alleging violation of the Texas Securities Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy to defraud. Also on October 27, 2023, Clifford Day and Carla Monahan filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against the same defendants, alleging the same claims. The parties agreed to move the defendants' deadline to respond to the petition to February 19, 2024. On April 10, 2024, the plaintiffs and Ben parties entered into a twelve-month tolling agreement, and the plaintiffs filed motions to nonsuit their claims that the courts granted on April 12, 2024 and April 16, 2024, respectively. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation. Beneficient is a technology-enabled financial services holding company based in Texas. BENEFICIENT INC: Continues to Defend Scura Class Suit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Beneficient Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Scura class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against Ben, certain members of its board of directors (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of GWG Holdings (Jon R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO Technologies Inc. ("FOXO"), and Emerson Equity LLC ("Emerson") (the "Scura Action"). The suit alleges that the defendants defrauded GWG Holdings' investors, and it asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG Holdings' L Bonds or preferred stock of GWG Holdings between December 23, 2017, and April 20, 2022. The suit alleges that (i) BCG, the individual defendants, and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, (ii) that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and (iii) that Emerson violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. The complaint does not allege the total amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs. On October 27, 2023, David Scura filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against Brad K. Heppner, Jon R. Sabes, Steven F. Sabes, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, the Company and FOXO, alleging violation of the Texas Securities Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy to defraud and seeking compensatory damages, costs and expenses. The same day, Clifford Day and Carla Monahan filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against the same defendants, alleging the same claims. The parties agreed to move the defendants' deadline to respond to the petition to February 19, 2024. On April 10, 2024, the plaintiffs and Ben parties entered into a twelve-month tolling agreement, and the plaintiffs filed motions to nonsuit their claims that the courts granted on April 12, 2024 and April 16, 2024, respectively. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation. Beneficient is a technology-enabled financial services holding company based in Texas. BERLIN FIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Braniecki Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE K. BRANIECKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERLIN FIRE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01900-JRR (D.MD., June 28, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Braniecki was employed by the Defendant as a firefighter. BERLIN FIRE COMPANY, INC. provide fire, rescue and emergency services to the Town of Berlin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com BLINK CHARGING: Settlement Class Gets Certified in Bush Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD M. BUSH, v. BLINK CHARGING COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-23527-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Williams entered an order as follows: 1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes – Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Blink securities between March 6, 2020 and Aug. 19, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of Blink, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded are any persons or entities who properly exclude themselves by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court. 2. Class Findings – Solely for purposes of the proposed Settlement of this Action, the Court finds that each element required for certification of the Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been met. 3. The Court finds and concludes that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of the Settlement only, Lead Plaintiffs Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu, and H. Marc Joseph are adequate class representatives and certifies them as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court also appoints Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement – The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing to be conducted as described below. 5. Settlement Hearing – The Court will hold a settlement hearing on October 23, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Kathleen M. Williams in Room 11-3 of the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, located at 400 North Miami Avenue in Miami, Florida. 6. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the Settlement Class, and Approval of Notice of the Settlement Class (DE 94) is GRANTED. Blink is an American electric vehicle charging network operator. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZU0rCa at no extra charge.[CC] BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Kerr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ DERWIN KERR, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., D/B/A FLEMING'S STEAKHOUSE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02493 (W.D. Tenn., July 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former tipped employees (servers) of Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a common plan, policy and practice of compensating Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees under a tip-credit compensation plan, consisting of paying such employees only a sub-minimum hourly rate of pay and then crediting tips received by such servers during their shifts which, when added to the sub-minimum pay, would amount to at least the FLSA required hourly rate of pay of at least $7.25. The Defendant allegedly has and continues to employ Plaintiff and those similarly situated who are classified as "tipped employees" but who routinely perform non-tipped tasks and, thereby, are deprived of the opportunity to earn tips during a significant portion of their respective shifts. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid tipped employee (server) at its Fleming's Steakhouse restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee. The Defendant owns and operates numerous restaurants in Tennessee and in other states across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com BRIAN MARKETING: Anthony Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brian Marketing Group. The case is styled as Michael Anthony, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Brian Marketing Group, Case No. 9:24-cv-80800-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Brian Marketing group -- https://brianmarketinggroup.com/ -- is a full-service digital marketing agency with numerous opportunities for those looking to grow within our company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Ave, D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 612-9999 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mike@kazlg.com BROTHER ASIAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Layne Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DALE LAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROTHER ASIAN CUISINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04600 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.brothersasian.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Brother Asian Cuisine, Inc. operates as a restaurant in Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com C.A.A.I.R.: Parties Must Submit Class Cert Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Copeland, et al., v. C.A.A.I.R., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00564 (N.D. Okla., Filed Oct. 10, 2017), the Hon. Judge Sara E. Hill entered an order directing the parties to submit a joint proposed class certification scheduling order: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] CACTUS HOME OFFER: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cactus Home Offer LLC. The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cactus Home Offer LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01552-CDB (D. Ariz., June 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cactus Home Offer -- https://cactushomeoffer.com/ -- covers the closing costs, realtor fees, and paperwork.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq. BROWN PATENT LAW 15100 N 78th Way, Ste. 203 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (602) 529-3474 Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com - and - Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CANADA: Court Certifies Class Action Over Immigration Detainees --------------------------------------------------------------- Brigitte Bureau, writing for CBC News, reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class-action lawsuit against the federal government regarding the use of provincial jails for immigration detainees. The suit represents 8,360 people who were detained in 87 provincial and territorial jails by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) between 2016 and 2023. In the decision issued Friday, July 5, the court rejected each of the 15 objections raised by the federal government's lawyers who were trying to stop the action from proceeding. "Immigration detainees were incarcerated in provincial prisons and encountered the same conditions as criminal inmates, including co-mingling with violent offenders, use of restraints such as shackles and handcuffs, strip searches, and severe restrictions on contact and movement," wrote Justice Benjamin Glustein. Foreign nationals and permanent residents detained by CBSA under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are not accused of a crime. "According to Canadian and international law, immigration detention is administrative in nature and cannot be punitive," according to the class action. "Nonetheless, the CBSA has a longstanding practice of detaining thousands of immigration detainees in provincial prisons through arrangements with provinces and territories. This practice violates the Charter rights of the detainees." The federal government has not indicated if it will appeal the court's decision. 'Dozens of strip searches' One of the plaintiffs representing the immigration detainees is Tyron Richard, originally from Grenada. Richard spent 18 months in three different maximum security jails in Ontario from January 2015 to July 2016, even though he was not considered a danger. He was being held as a flight risk. He said while in jail, he was subjected to dozens of strip searches. "I was required to strip off my clothes, turn around, bend over, spread my buttocks, and undergo an inspection of my anus by a guard with a flashlight, and to undergo a visual inspection under and next to my genitals," Richard swore in his affidavit. "I would describe my life in prison as a living hell, where I cried almost every day." Nor was he afforded any privacy from his cellmate or guards, Richard said. "The toilet was open in the room right next to the door." Communication with friends and family was extremely difficult. "Visits were no-touch and were conducted in booths through glass, using a telephone, and limited to only 15-20 minutes," Richard said. He has since regained his permanent resident status and is currently applying to become a Canadian citizen. "I am proud that I am now able to stand up and fight back against this inhumane practice on behalf of the class to help make sure that it does not happen to anyone else," Richard said in a statement provided by his lawyers. Most deemed a flight risk CBSA can detain foreign nationals including asylum seekers if their identity hasn't been well enough established, if they're deemed a danger to the public, or if they're considered a flight risk, meaning the border agency believes they won't appear for immigration processes including removal. Over the years, more than 80 per cent of the detainees were held for flight risk. CBSA can choose to hold an immigration detainee either in one of its three immigration holding centres or in jails used under agreements with provincial governments. Since 2022, most of the provinces have pulled out of these agreements, with some saying the practice is contrary to Canada's human rights obligations. "It is difficult to imagine living in a place where the government can incarcerate people who have been charged with no crime, in maximum security prisons where they are subjected to cruel conditions including solitary confinement and strip searches," said immigration lawyer Subodh Bharati, one of the lawyers leading the class action. "Yet this is what the CBSA does to immigration detainees -- some of the most vulnerable people in our country." For those Bharati represents, the battle is far from over. Certification means the court believes there's enough evidence to justify the lawsuit, but only a future trial will determine whether the group of immigration detainees or the federal government wins the case. The claim seeks $100 million in damages, to be divided among the complainants if they win. Radio-Canada reached out to the offices of Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who is responsible for CBSA, and to Justice Minister Arif Virani. Neither has provided any comments regarding the Ontario court's decision. [GN] CAPITAL ONE BANK: Kelly Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank, N.A. The case is styled as Tiffany W. Kelly, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situa v. Capital One Bank, N.A. doing business as: Capital One Auto Finance, John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:24-cv-01653-X (N.D. Tex., June 28, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Capital One, National Association -- https://www.capitalone.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank offers financial products and services such as personal and business checking, savings accounts, investment, mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and commercial banking solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N MOHAMMED 539 W Commerce St #1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (972) 767-9099 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Mohammed Omar Badwan SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Data From Cyberattacks, Fowler Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOWLER BUICK GMC, INC., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05643 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to secure its systems and data from cyberattacks, including ransomware attacks. On June 19, 2024, the Defendant suffered a ransomware attack, which prevented the Defendant's clients, such as automotive dealers, from conducting their routine and ordinary business, including receiving payment for vehicle and parts sales and vehicle maintenance services provided to the public. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff was unable to conduct regular business, causing significant business interruption and lost revenues, the lawsuit asserts. Additionally, the Plaintiff has expended significant time and effort in an attempt to resolve the difficulties and mitigate the financial harms resulting from the breach. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff, and the Class continue to experience significant business interruption and disruption as a direct and proximate result of their inability to conduct normal business operations while Defendant's systems are offline due to the Data Breach, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff is a car dealership located in Pearl, Mississippi. The Defendant is a provider of integrated information technology and tools to car dealers and other companies in the automotive industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald M. Abdalla, Jr., Esq. ABDALLA LAW, PLLC 602 Steed Road, Suite 200 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 278-6055 E-mail: jerry@abdalla-law.com - and - Timothy W. Porter, Esq. PORTER & MALOUF, P.A. Jackson, MS 39236 Telephone: (601) 957-1173 E-mail: tim@portermalouf.com - and - Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C 120 North LaSalle Street, 36th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: rclifford@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com CENTENE CORP: Teague Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------- LATASHA TEAGUE, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. CENTENE CORPORATION, and CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, Case No. 714129/2024 (NY Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., July 9, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff and potential class members were all victims of Defendants' scheme to underpay employees and avoid paying overtime. The Defendants impermissibly induced extensive off-the-clock work with a policy of instituting excessive quotas on employees, which required overtime hours to complete. At the same time, the Defendants maintained a procedure for requesting overtime requiring employees to subject themselves to a productivity review and possible reprimand/termination, says the suit. Moreover, employees of the Defendants paid on commission were also victims of what is referred to as the "Open Enrollment Scandal" occurring in 2020. The Defendants induced higher sales by distributing emails and paperwork promising higher commission rates than were actually delivered to employees, the suit added. The Defendants operate a leading healthcare enterprise selling healthcare insurance products to individuals and families across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Bay Area Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Bay Area Therapy Group a Marriage and Family Counseling Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01682 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02354-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Berger, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. Rosemary Medellin Rivas, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4640 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Matlick Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lonny David Matlick doing business as: Lonny D. Matlick D.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04364 transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02361-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean Michael Marotta, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-4881 Email: sean.marotta@hoganlovells.com CHEF V LLC: Harrell Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHEF V, LLC. The case is styled as Alfonso Harrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHEF V, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-07309 (D.N.J., June 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. CHEF V, LLC -- https://chefv.com/ -- offer easy-to-follow 3-Day, 5-Day, 7-Day Organic Cleanse options.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COMMONWEALTH BANK: Sets Date for Class Settlement Payments ---------------------------------------------------------- Ella of Spartail Chamber reports that The Commonwealth Bank in Australia is facing multiple class action lawsuits. Customers and shareholders are awaiting settlements. This article will cover the important details, including payment dates, amounts, eligibility, and how to apply for the refunds. Commonwealth Bank Class Action Overview The Commonwealth Bank misled its customers, making them think they needed certain bank products. This led to many customers buying products they didn't need. Investors also suffered losses and filed lawsuits. The bank has promised to refund affected customers and investors. The Commonwealth Bank is Australia's largest bank, with millions of users. In recent years, it faced a major lawsuit due to a data breach. Many customers claimed the bank issued them loans and credit cards they didn't qualify for. Commonwealth Bank Class Action Payment Dates The settlement process began in 2021. Many customers received refunds within 60 days of applying. However, due to the large number of claims, the process is ongoing. Most customers can expect refunds by the end of 2024. Payments will be processed in batches, with 10,000 refunds issued per day. Commonwealth Bank Class Action Amounts The amount each claimant receives depends on their investment in personal accounts and credit insurance. The Federal Court of Australia has ordered the bank to compensate customers based on these investments. The bank's stock value fell significantly, affecting investors. Shareholders will also receive refunds based on their investment amount and the bank's stock price. So far, around 50 million users have received their refunds, but many are still waiting. Who Qualifies for the Commonwealth Bank Class Action? To qualify for a refund, claimants must meet certain criteria set by the Federal Court of Australia: -- Claimed premiums from the bank but did not receive a refund. -- Purchased personal account and consumer credit insurance from the bank. -- Registered for the lawsuit with the bank. -- Held more than one account at the bank for over two years. -- Invested income in the bank's credit or personal insurance. -- Provided all necessary documents and details for the claim. If eligible, the court will notify claimants by mail. How to Apply for the Commonwealth Bank Class Action If you are affected, follow these steps to apply for a refund: 1. Visit the CBA CCI Class Action Settlement portal. 2. Register as a Federal compensator or use your bank customer ID. 3. Provide details about your investments and claimed products. 4. Fill out the application form with your personal information, contact number, and account details. 5. After 3 to 4 weeks, you will receive a verification call. 6. The notice of compensation amount and disbursement date will be sent to you. FAQs What is the Commonwealth Bank Class Action about? The class action is about the bank misleading customers into buying unnecessary products and the resulting financial losses for customers and investors. Who qualifies for the refund? Customers who bought personal accounts and credit insurance, registered for the lawsuit, and meet other eligibility criteria set by the Federal Court of Australia. How can I apply for the refund? Apply through the CBA CCI Class Action Settlement portal, provide necessary details, and wait for the verification process. [GN] CONNECTICUT COLLEGE: Murray Files Suit in D. Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connecticut College. The case is styled as James MT Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Connecticut College, Case No. 3:24-cv-01099-MPS (D. Conn., June 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Connecticut College -- https://www.conncoll.edu/ -- is a private liberal arts college in New London, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Michael Brown, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 200 Stephenson Avenue, Ste. 200 Savannah, GA 31405 Phone: (203) 726-0086 Fax: (912) 443-1185 Email: william.brown2@usdoj.gov CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Johnson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Johnson individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consulting Radiologists, Ltd., Case No. 27-CV-24-10240 (Minn. Cir, Ct., Hennepin Cty., July 9, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect highly sensitive data, including personal identifiable information and protected health information. On Feb. 12, 2024, the Defendant realized that it was hacked in the Data Breach. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII/PHI were compromised: names, dates of birth, addresses, health insurance information, medical information, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, face sheets, and imaging reports. In total, the Defendant injured at least 583,824 persons—via the exposure of their PII/PHI—in the Data Breach.13 Upon information and belief, these 583,824 persons include its current and former patient, the suit says. On April 17, 2024, the Defendant had finished "identifying persons whose sensitive data was included within the impacted data." And yet, the Defendant waited over until June 14, 2024, before it began notifying the class—a full 58 days after the Defendant had determined who was exposed. Thus, the Defendant kept the Class in the dark—thereby depriving the Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner. The Plaintiff has already suffered from identity theft and fraud—beginning in May 2024, the Plaintiff's debit card with Star Choice Credit Union was flooded with fraudulent charges for Microsoft Xbox codes (i.e., gift cards). Suspiciously, many of the charges were worth $2. As a result, the Plaintiff did not discover the fraudulent charges until June 2024. Ultimately, the fraudulent charges totaled approximately $98, the suit claims. Because of Defendant's alleged Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered -- and will continue to suffer from -- anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Such injuries go far beyond allegations of mere worry or inconvenience. Mr. Johnson is an adult individual who at all relevant times has been a citizen and resident of Minnesota, who has been a patient at Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. in recent years. He gave PII and PHI to Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. as a condition of receiving medical services. The Defendant is a physician-owned healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Bar No. 0387366 BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esquire, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Mathisen Alleges Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW MATHISEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS, LTD., Case No. 0:24-cv-02626 (D. Minn., July 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect highly sensitive data, including personal identifiable information and protected health information. On Feb. 12, 2024, the Defendant realized that it was hacked in the Data Breach. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII/PHI were compromised: names, dates of birth, addresses, health insurance information, medical information, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, face sheets, and imaging reports. In total, the Defendant injured at least 583,824 persons—via the exposure of their PII/PHI—in the Data Breach.13 Upon information and belief, these 583,824 persons include its current and former patient, the suit says. On April 17, 2024, the Defendant had finished "identifying persons whose sensitive data was included within the impacted data." And yet, the Defendant waited over until June 14, 2024, before it began notifying the class—a full 58 days after the Defendant had determined who was exposed. Thus, the Defendant kept the Class in the dark—thereby depriving the Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff has already suffered from identity theft and fraud—beginning in May 2024, the Plaintiff's debit card with Star Choice Credit Union was flooded with fraudulent charges for Microsoft Xbox codes (i.e., gift cards). Suspiciously, many of the charges were worth $2. As a result, the Plaintiff did not discover the fraudulent charges until June 2024. Ultimately, the fraudulent charges totaled approximately $98. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered -- and will continue to suffer from -- anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Such injuries go far beyond allegations of mere worry or inconvenience, the suit further claims. Mr. Mathisen resides in Bloomington, Minnesota where he intends to remain. The Defendant is a physician-owned healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com bresch@straussborrelli.com CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Wolf Files Suit in Minn. Dist. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. The case is styled as John Wolf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consulting Radiologists, Ltd., Case No. 27-CV-24-9850 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., June 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. (CRL) -- https://www.consultingradiologists.com/ -- is a physician-owned practice serving patients and providers throughout the Upper Midwest for more than 90 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com CONTINUUM HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bellino Says ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICIA BELLINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINUUM HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07353 (D.N.J., June 28, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Continuum Health Alliance, LLC provides healthcare services. The Company offers practice management, population health, and network development services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Johan Obregon, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN P.A. 30 Montgomery St, Suite 410 Jersey City, NJ 07302 - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042-2754 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com COVENANT SURGICAL: Gardner Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as JORDANA GARDNER, Individually and on behalf of herself as well as all others similarly-situated employees, v. DR. ALONZO WILLIAMS, SR.; SUSAN WILLIAMS; SUZETTE SIEGLER; SELMA KEEFER; COVENANT SURGICAL PARTNERS, INC., d./b/a COVENANT PHYSICIAN PARTNERS; ARKANSAS DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, P.A.; JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 60CV-24-3257 (Filed Apr. 23, 2024), was removed from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division on July 3, 2024. The Eastern Arkansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00564-BSM to the proceeding. The suit alleges failure to pay wages and overtime, in violation of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Miller. Covenant is a privately-held owner and operator of ambulatory surgery centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq. Lucien R. Gillham, Esq. SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C. 150 I N Pierce, Ste. 105 Little Rock, AR 72207 Telephone: (501) 315-1910 Facsimile: (501) 315-1916 E-mail: Luther.sutterlaw@gmail.com Lucien.gillham@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Regina A. Young, Esq. Daveante Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 Facsimile: (501) 376-9442 E-mail: ryoung@wlj.com dljones@wlj.com CVS PHARMACY: Osterhaus Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Osterhaus Pharmacy Incorporated, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy Incorporated, Caremark RX LLC formerly known as: Caremark RX Incorporated, Caremark LLC, CaremarkPCS LLC, Caremark PCS Health LLC, Caremark IPA LLC, Caremark Part D. Services LLC, Aetna Incorporated, Aetna Health Holdings LLC, Aetna Health Management LLC, , Case No. 2:23-cv-01500 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on June 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01539-JJT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. -- https://www.cvs.com/ -- is an American retail corporation. A subsidiary of CVS Health, it is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alisa Lu, Esq. Derek Jackson, Esq. John Roberti, Esq. Melissa Maxman, Esq. COHEN & GRESSER LLP - WASHINGTON DC 2001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 851-2070 Fax: (202) 851-2081 - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Julie Pollock, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC - SAN FRANCISCO 505 Montgomery St., Ste. 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 906-0684 - and - Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. Blythe Chandler, Esq. Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th St., Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 319-5450 Email: AS@girardgibbs.com The Defendants are represented by: Aon S. Hussain, Esq. Elizabeth Zamora Meraz, Esq. Kevin Patrick Shea, Esq. Seth A Horvath, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP - CHICAGO, IL 70 W Madison St., Ste. 5200 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 977-4397 Fax: (833) 607-9402 Email: ahussain@nixonpeabody.com ezmeraz@nixonpeabody.com kpshea@nixonpeabody.com sahorvath@nixonpeabody.com - and - Nicholas Marquiss, Esq. Shylah Renee Alfonso, Esq. Tiffany L. Lee, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP - SEATTLE, WA 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 359-6136 Email: SAlfonso@perkinscoie.com DAVE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lopez Extended to Feb. 14, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. DAVE INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04160-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation regarding case calendar and briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion to certify class as follows: 1. Plaintiff's time to file its Motion for Class Certification is extended from Sept. 19, 2024, to Feb. 14, 2025. 2. Defendant's time to file its Response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended from Nov. 14, 2024 to April 18, 2025. 3. Plaintiff's time to file its Reply in support of its Motion for Class Certification is extended from Jan. 16, 2024 to June 13, 2025. 4. The Motion for Class Certification be set for hearing on July 17, 2025 at 10 a.m. or such other time as is convenient of for the Court. Both parties agree that, due to the partial stay of discovery and other developments in the case, including multiple pending discovery disputes about which the parties continue to meet and confer, additional time to perform discovery would benefit both parties. On July 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendant. On Nov. 30, 2022, the Court set an initial deadline of Aug. 3, 2023, for Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class. On May 9, 2023, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granted a motion to compel production of documents by the Plaintiff and Defendant subsequently produced documents to Plaintiff. On April 5, 2024, the Court held a further Case Management Conference and set the deadline for Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class for Sept. 19, 2024, and scheduled the hearing on the motion for Feb. 28, 2025. Dave operates as a digital banking services company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fBvybJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley Reynolds, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Ben Turner, Esq. Andrew Yu-Chih, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-4728 Facsimile: (310) 201-4721 E-mail: edward.totino@bakermckenzie.com ben.turner@bakermckenzie.com DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jordan Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RHONDA JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DESIGNED RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01503 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2024) arises out of Designed Receivable Solutions' failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes and seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief from Defendant. On Jan. 22, 2024, DRSI realized that its security failures resulted in a massive data breach ("Data Breach") of highly sensitive documents and information stored on its computer network, and that the cybercriminals exfiltrated information pertaining to certain current and former clients' patients, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in or before January 2024 to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals. The Private Information of least 498,000 similarly situated persons, including Plaintiff, was affected and exfiltrated in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on January 22, 2024, says the suit. On January 22, 2024, DRSI detected suspicious activity in its network environment. Upon discovery of this incident, DRSI promptly took steps to secure its network and engaged a specialized cybersecurity firm to investigate the nature and scope of the incident. As a result of the investigation, DRSI learned that an unauthorized actor accessed certain files and data stored within our network, the suit added. Plaintiff Rhonda Jordan is and at all times mentioned herein was an individual citizen of the State of Alabama, residing in the city of Citronelle (Mobile County), and was a patient of Springhill Emergency Physicians, a client of DRSI. According to its website, Designed Receivables was created to provide cash flow and accounts receivable ("A/R") solutions to healthcare providers "while ensuring the highest level of patient and physician satisfaction."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jill J. Parker, Esq. PARKER & MINNE, LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 882-6833 Facsimile: (310) 889-0822 E-mail: jill@parkerminne.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, D.C. 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail dperry@masonllp.com DEVON ENERGY: Wright Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Madeline A. Wright, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No. 2:22-cv-00213-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, finally approving the Class Action Settlement, including final approval of the: -- Proposed class action Settlement; -- Notice of Settlement and Plan of Notice; and -- Proposed Initial Plan of Allocation. Devon Energy is an oil and gas producer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9VTzya at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com – and – Rick Erb, Esq. RICHARD A. ERB, JR., PC Gillette, WY 82717 Telephone: (307) 682-0215 Facsimile: (307) 682-1339 E-mail: rick@rickerb.com DISCOVER BANK: Settles Card Misclassification Suit For $1.2-Bil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlin Mullen, writing for BankingDive, reports that Discover is set to pay $1.2 billion to settle class-action lawsuit claims related to a card misclassification issue disclosed last year, Discover said in a regulatory filing. Claims were filed on behalf of merchants and merchant acquirers affected by the misclassification. -- Earlier this year, Discover increased the amount it was setting aside to resolve the issue, and the card company "expects all payments under the settlement agreement to be covered" by the $1.2 billion reserve, the July 3 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission said. -- The settlement, entered into July 1, awaits court approval, Discover said in the filing. Dive Insight: Beginning in 2007, the Riverwoods, Illinois-based company misclassified certain credit card accounts into its highest merchant and merchant acquirer price tier, resulting in overcharges. The issue "underscored deficiencies" in the company's corporate governance and risk management, former CEO Roger Hochschild said last July, just weeks before he resigned abruptly in August. The company faces an SEC probe over the issue. During the first quarter, Discover "continued settlement discussions with large direct merchants both directly and indirectly as plaintiffs in putative class actions filed on behalf of all merchants, and the Company continued to discuss these efforts with its regulators," the card company said in its first-quarter regulatory filing. In the first quarter, Discover added $799 million to the $375 million already set aside to resolve the card misclassification issue. The decision to bolster the set-aside was based on the company's experience to date with remediation efforts, regulatory dialogue and Discover's pending merger with Capital One, Discover CFO John Greene said in April. An additional $9 million in settlement disbursements were made in the first quarter, following $12 million made as of the end of last year, the company's first-quarter filing said. Discover executives expected the reserve increase earlier this year, bringing the total to about $1.2 billion, would "advance the resolution of these issues," Discover's interim CEO, Michael Shepherd, said in April. On top of that sum, the company has warned that it could face further financial toll related to the issue. In addition to the SEC investigation, Discover expects discussions with its regulators could result in enforcement actions carrying monetary penalties, and the company faces a putative shareholder class action. "The Company believes that additional losses are probable as a result of these actions and such losses could be material," Discover said in the filing. Capital One CEO Richard Fairbank has said the company is bracing for a "significant" undertaking in resolving compliance issues at Discover, pending the merger's approval. In February, Capital One announced it intended to purchase Discover for $35.3 billion in an all-stock deal; executives have said they expect the deal to close late this year or early next. The proposed merger, which would create the largest credit card issuer in the U.S., requires approval from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The two agencies will hold a public meeting July 19 "to collect information from a wide range of stakeholders as the agencies evaluate the applications," they said in May. Public comment on the merger applications can be made to the Fed and OCC through July 24. [GN] DRI HEALTHCARE: Kalloghlian Myers Probes Investor Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Kalloghlian Myers LLP is investigating a potential investor class action against DRI Healthcare Trust (the "Trust") (TSX: DHT.UN) (TSX: DHT.U) and certain current and former trustees and officers. On July 8, 2024, the Trust announced the resignation of Behzad Khosrowshahi as trustee and CEO as a result of an ongoing investigation of irregularities related to expenses presented by him for reimbursement to the Trust and its manager, DRI Capital Inc. On this news, the price of the Trust's Canadian dollar units on the TSX dropped from $15.24 at the close of trading on July 5 to $11.17 at the close of trading on July 8. The Trust's USD units also declined in price. Kalloghlian Myers LLP is a Toronto-based law firm specializing in investor class actions. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240709667105/en/ Contacts If you owned DRI Healthcare Trust units, contact Kalloghlian Myers LLP: Serge Kalloghlian Kalloghlian Myers LLP serge@kalloghlianmyers.com www.kalloghlianmyers.com/DRI [GN] EQUIFAX: Bid for Class Certification Modified to Oct. 14, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Equifax Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-03072-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to modify the scheduling order. Event Deadline Close of Fact Discovery March 15, 2025 Plaintiffs' Expert Reports May 13, 2025 Equifax's Expert Reports June 27, 2025 Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports Aug. 11, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery and Deadline Sept. 16, 2025 for Expert Depositions Motion for Class Certification No later than Oct. 14, 2025 Equifax is an American multinational consumer credit reporting agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7GZKwu at no extra charge.[CC] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Tenants Sue Over Violation of Rent Control Law ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Israel, writing for Tap into Jersey City, reports that a groundbreaking class action lawsuit has been filed by the Portside Towers Tenant Associations against Equity Residential and related entities for systematic violations of rent control laws at Portside Towers in Jersey City. The Portside Towers West and East Tenant Associations represent over 5,000 families either currently or formerly residing at 100 Warren Street, or Portside West, and 155 Washington Street, or Portside East. Both tenant associations have been instrumental in organizing tenants, gathering evidence, and pursuing legal action to enforce rent control laws. The suit alleges over two decades of unlawful rent increases, potentially affecting thousands of current and former tenants. According to the suit, approximately $140 million in excess rent was collected from 1995 (initial occupancy) to the present. "After more than two decades of fighting for our rights, we're finally seeing justice on the horizon," said Kevin Weller, President of the Portside Towers East Tenant Association who is among the lead plaintiffs. "This lawsuit isn't just about Portside Towers; it's about standing up for tenants' rights everywhere." Michele Hirsch, President of the Portside Towers West Tenant Association, and named plaintiff, added, "Each rent hike represented a hardship for our families. This lawsuit seeks to right those wrongs and ensure that affordable housing remains a reality, not just a promise." The lawsuit seeks over $400 million in damages, including treble damages under the NJ Consumer Fraud Act, but the total could potentially soar to over $700 million if maximum punitive damages are awarded under common law fraud claims. Believed to be the largest rent control class action lawsuit in United States history, Weller said this landmark legal action represents a significant challenge to corporate landlord practices. "Filing this class action complaint is a crucial step to rectify the injustices our tenants have faced for over two decades," said Weller. "Equity Residential's stubbornness will likely result in a ripple effect as what will become some of the strongest case law related to rent control in New Jersey is about to not only hold them accountable, but all large landlords will have Equity to thank for the tidal wave of justice tenants will finally realize." "Our lawsuit aims to shed light on the illegal practices of our landlord and the urgent need for strict enforcement of rent control," added Hirsch. "This case is not just about us; it's about ensuring that rent control laws are enforced to protect all tenants in Jersey City." The suit alleges that both a First Vice President of Equity Residential and the local manager certified, subject to punishment, that Portside Towers was subject to rent control. First Vice President James von Albade certified under the penalty of perjury that the buildings were subject to rent control, and Vice President of Investments Wayne Ngai made contradictory representations about rent control states. According to the suit, Ngai allegedly certified that 155 Washington was newly constructed in a redevelopment zone, which the Bureau of Rent Leveling had already certified was not true. The lawsuit describes this as an additional effort to evade rent control. For context, in 1992, Portside West was issued its Certificate of Occupancy and Portside East followed in 1997. The current owners, The Towers at Portside Urban Renewal Company, LLC, acquired the property in 1998. The lawsuit follows years of tenant organizing and advocacy, marked by recent key developments. From 2020 to 2022, City officials confirmed rent control applies to both buildings. In December 2021, Equity Residential certified all 527 units were subject to rent control. The City issued notice treating buildings as under rent control. The buildings were again certified as rent-controlled in late January 2022. However, by May 31 the tenants had filed their first illegal rent petition. In October 2023, the Jersey City Rent Leveling Board unanimously ruled the buildings have always been subject to rent control. "I mentioned at the first Rent Leveling Board hearing [on 5/31/2023] that if we are forced to go to court, we would seek over 400 million in damages," Weller said. "This lawsuit has resulted because Equity Residential was not only unreasonable but continued to increase rents for over 8 months since the tenants won via the unanimous Board ruling. Equity chose to abandon the last opportunity they had to settle this at a discount." Weller continued: "Beyond that, even after the city, the tenants' lawyers, and the outside counsel for the city each warned Equity Residential of severe fines and penalties, including jail, Equity continued to increase rents, stating they didn't agree with the binding Board determination to which there is no stay in any court." Despite these rulings, the lawsuit alleges that Equity Residential continued to impose rent increases deemed illegal by the Board, disregarding warnings from city officials and legal experts. The lawsuit states the timeline also demonstrates the city treated Portside Towers as subject to rent control prior to tenants filing their illegal rent petitions. The case exposes a pattern of willful non-compliance with rent control laws and highlights the critical role of the 1999 legislative update in clarifying exemption requirements. The 1999 State law amendment reinforced strict filing requirements for rent control exemptions, applied retroactively to buildings constructed before the law, and removed any ambiguity about the mandatory nature of the filing requirement. "We've been waiting for justice for over 20 years, and this class action lawsuit is our chance to finally hold our landlord accountable," Hirsch said. "By coming together in this class action, we're sending a clear message that tenants' rights cannot be ignored." The lawsuit is also significant in that it has the potential to set precedent for similar cases across the City and other municipalities across New Jersey. This includes AvalonBay at 800 Madison Street in Hoboken and Alister Montclair at 11 Pine Street in Montclair, of which both cases are pending in State Superior Court. "The potential impact of this case extends far beyond Jersey City," Weller noted. "It could set a precedent for how rent control laws are enforced across the country, giving hope to millions of renters." "This legal action is a necessary step to ensure that future tenants are not subjected to the same unlawful practices," Hirsch said. "We're confident that this case will pave the way for stronger tenant protections across the city." It would also have implications for The Rivington at 1130 Grand Street in Hoboken, which is also managed by Equity Residential. The case is similar to that of the Portside Towers because they never filed claim of exemption, but they have the opportunity to file a new complaint or to join this class action lawsuit. Additionally, the lawsuit aims to demonstrates the intersection of rent control violations and algorithmic pricing like by RealPage. The suit alleges the use of RealPage pricing algorithms to artificially set, adjust, and inflate rents, facilitating the sharing of competitively sensitive information among property owners and managers. This use of algorithmic pricing, combined with the systematic violation of rent control laws, potentially constitutes a violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Weller actually filed one of the original RealPage Class actions on April 7, 2023. He added: "We invite the DOJ to file a brief in support of our class action as they have in the RealPage litigation, given this is an example of how far Equity Residential was willing to go to fully leverage that software, even in a city where rent control is the default." The tenant associations expressed deep gratitude to the numerous residents who have spoken at City Council meetings and supported this long-fought battle for justice. The grassroots organizations have become influential voices in the fight for tenant rights and affordable housing. As this significant legal challenge unfolds, the tenants of Portside Towers invite supporters nationwide to join their cause. Those facing similar situations are encouraged by the tenant associations to reach out and share their experiences. Weller concluded: "We invite other tenants facing similar situations to reach out to us at RentControlJC@gmail.com. Together, we can fight for our rights and ensure that rent control laws are enforced. Follow our journey on Twitter @RentControlJC and support our legal fund at our GoFundMe page." [GN] ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Morgan Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michelle Morgan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. EssilorLuxottica S.A.; Luxottica Group S.p.A.; Essilor International SAS; EssilorLuxottica USA Inc.; Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp.; Essilor of America Holding Company, Inc.; Luxottica of America, Inc.; Essilor of America Inc.; EyeMed Vision Care, LLC; and Vision Source, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-03065 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04826-MKV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. EssilorLuxottica -- https://www.essilorluxottica.com/en/ -- is the combination of two highly complementary and inspiring business stories, which have revolutionized an entire industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian M. Hogan, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Ave., Ste 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Email: brian.hogan@scott-scott.com - and - Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Eura Chang, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 285 Saratoga St. S., Ste. Apt. 1 St. Paul, MN 55105 Phone: (507) 269-3810 - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 933-1000 Fax: (646) 494-9648 - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL, NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200 Mpls, MN 55401-2179 Phone: (612) 596-4092 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Katsnelson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- IAN KATSNELSON and JESSICA MARCANTEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 2:24-cv-02487 (W.D. Tenn., July 9, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, account information, and/or other personal information. According to the complaint, former and current Evolve customers are required to entrust the Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform their regular business activities, in order to use Evolve's financial services. On June 26, 2024, the Defendant announced that it was "currently investigating a cybersecurity incident involving a known cybercriminal organization that appears to have illegally obtained and released on the dark web the data and personal information of some Evolve retail bank customers and financial technology partners' customers." As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury including invasion of privacy; lost or diminished value of PII; lost opportunity costs associated with at-tempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, loss of benefit of the bargain; and the continued and certainly in-creased risk to their PII, says the suit. Evolve is a bank, that offers financial services to its customers, including checking accounts, savings accounts, debit cards, person-al loans, home loans, CDs, IRAs, personal trusts, and financial management services, including Shopify Balance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Data, Franz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNA FRANZ and MARK HINGLE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons V. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. (E.D. Ark., July 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to secure their systems and data from cyberattacks. On June 25, 2024, Evolve announced that a "known cybercriminal organization" stole its customers' personal identification information ("PII") and posted it on the dark web. As a result, millions of Evolve's customers lost their PII, and even more significantly, they have been locked out of their Evolve accounts, prevented them from accessing their funds to pay everyday expenses, thereby causing widespread harm and disruption, the Plaintiffs assert. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's alleged wrongful acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered, and continue to suffer, economic damage and other actual harm, including monetary losses arising from inability to access their funds, together with expenses incurred in attempts to mitigate such business interruption and disruption. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class continue to experience significant business interruption and disruption as a direct and proximate result of their inability to, among others, access their own funds stored at Evolve. The Defendant's wanton, willful, and reckless disregard caused a complete and total interruption of service, and further caused Plaintiffs and the Class monetary and other damages, the suit claims. This action seeks to recover the losses sustained by Evolve customers as a result of losing their PII and also losing their inability to access their funds. Ms. Franz has been a customer of the Defendant since 2021, by virtue of using a fintech app called Yotta, for whom the Defendant provides banking services. Evolve accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides mortgage solutions, card facilities, and online banking services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR, 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com EVOLVE BANK: Webster Sues Over Consumers' Compromised Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY WEBSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02467 (W.D. Tenn., July 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy-intrusion upon seclusion. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of its consumers and clients, including the Plaintiff, stored within its network systems following a data breach occurred between February 2024 and May 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Evolve Bank & Trust is a financial services firm based in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com GEISINGER HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Lopez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GEISINGER HEALTH and NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01106-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 3, 2024) sues the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information and personal health information, including names, dates of birth, address, admit and discharge or transfer codes, medical record numbers, race, gender, phone numbers, and care location information. On Nov. 29, 2023, Geisinger discovered that a former Nuance employee had accessed and acquired the PII/PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members. Following an investigation, Nuance determined that more than one million Geisinger patients were impacted by the Data Breach. Nuance, on behalf of Geisinger, began sending out notice letters to individuals impacted on June 21, 2024. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their PII/PHI and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Ms. Lopez was a patient of Geisinger. She received a letter from Nuance dated June 21, 2024, informing her of the Data Breach. Geisinger is a healthcare provider serving urban and rural communities in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lyman Class Suit Over Paint Latent Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- BRYON LYMAN, KELLY MCATEER, JASON MERKEL, and MARK VOLK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05786 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2024) is a putative class action complaint against the Defendant to remedy violations of law in connection with Defendant's designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. The Class Vehicles were all painted by Defendant, and the paint has a serious latent defect that causes the exterior surfaces of the Class Vehicles to peel, crack, become cloudy, and delaminate without any external or environmental influence. The vehicles at issue in this litigation include, but may not be limited to, the 2015-2020 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2015-2020 Chevrolet Suburban, 2015-2020 GMC Yukon, 2015-2020 GMC Yukon XL, and 2015-2020 Cadillac Escalade ("Class Vehicles"). According to the complaint, the Defendant knew, or should have known, prior to Plaintiffs’ purchases that the paint itself (and any clear coating) was defective, and that its application of the defective paint (and any clear coating) further contributed to the cracking, cloudiness, peeling and delamination. Although the defect manifested over time, the Defendant knew or should have known of those issues prior to sale of the Class Vehicles; yet Defendant continued to put the latently defective Class Vehicles on the market. The Defendant breached its express warranty by continuing to sell the defective Class Vehicles and refusing to remedy the issues; instead, it actively concealed them from Plaintiffs and the putative class. The Defendant fraudulently concealed the issues with the paint on the Class Vehicles in violation of state consumer protection laws, the lawsuit says. The Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the vehicles at issue. Defendant also developed and disseminated the manuals, warranty booklets, advertisements, and promotional materials relating to the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven W. Ritcheson, Esq. INSIGHT, PLC 578 Washington Blvd. #503 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Telephone: (818) 744-8714 Facsimile: (818) 337-0383 E-mail: swritcheson@insightplc.com - and - Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. Jeanie Sleadd, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com jeanie@hgdlawfirm.com GERALD KATZOFF: All Non-Expert Discovery Due Sept. 27 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASSET CO IM REST, LLC, et al., v. GERALD "JERRY" KATZOFF, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09691-JPC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an amended scheeduling order as follows: 1. All non-expert discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by Sept. 27, 2024. 2. Disclosure of expert evidence as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A), (B) or (C), including the identities and reports of experts, if any, shall be made by Oct. 21, 2024. 3. Depositions of experts shall be completed by Nov. 8, 2024. 4. The parties shall write to the Court as soon as they are prepared to engage in mediation. 5. Any request for permission to file a summary judgment motion shall be filed by Nov. 8, 2024, shall be addressed to Judge Cronan, and shall comply with his Individual Practices. 6. If no party files such a letter, the pretrial materials required by paragraph 7.B of Judge Cronan's Individual Practices shall be filed on or before Dec. 6, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xANebI at no extra charge.[CC] HOBBY LOBBY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Agostini Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04924 (S.D.N.Y., June, 28, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, ttps://www.hobbylobby.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. retails arts and craft products. The Company offers greeting cards, party crafts, fabric, floral, frames, hobby items, home accent, jewelry, needles, paper crafting, seasonal items, wearables, decorations, and wedding products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com INDIANA MASONIC: Petro Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & IMWL -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA PETRO, individually and for others similarly situated v. INDIANA MASONIC HOME, INC. d/b/a COMPASS PARK, Case No. e 1:24-cv-01150-JPH-MKK (S.D. Ind., July 10, 2024) is a class and collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from Indiana Masonic under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law. Like the Putative Class Members, Petro regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But Compass Park did not pay for all the hours they worked. Instead, Compass Park automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. Petro and the Putative Class Members were thus not paid for that time. But Compass Park fails to provide Petro and the Putative Class Members with bona fide meal breaks. Instead, Compass Park requires Petro and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and continuously subjects them to interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks," says the suit. Ms. Petro worked for Compass Park as an LPN in Franklin, Indiana. Compass Park operates short-term rehabilitation and long-term care facility in Franklin, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal KROGER CO: Boone County Participates in Opioid Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Riley Dutcher and Ryan Blakely of KOMU reports that the Boone County Commission unanimously agreed on Tuesday, July 9, to participate in an agreement with Gerbes' parent chain, Kroger, as a part of the company's nationwide $1.4 billion settlement. The Kroger Co. joins Walmart, CVS and Walgreens in agreeing to the settlement to avoid lawsuits alleging that large pharmacy companies fueled the nation's opioid crisis through lax oversight on medication sales. In September, Kroger agreed to pay up to $1.2 billion to state and local governments as well as Native American tribes to settle a majority of lawsuits against the company claiming it fueled the opioid epidemic, according to CNBC reporting. The settlement grants Boone County about $1.8 million through 2038, according to Presiding Commissioner Kip Kendrick. Kendrick said Boone County has already met with and continues to meet with various government health organizations such as the Missouri Department of Health, Department of Health and Senior Services and local members of public health to decide how to put the money toward overdose prevention. "There is going to be no magic bullet," Kendrick said. "This is a very real crisis, and it has a strong grip on communities across the country, especially as fentanyl continues to infiltrate communities. But it is something we have to be active on, and we have to make sure we look toward evidence-based solutions." Kroger operates two Gerbes supermarkets and pharmacies in Boone County. The settlement is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing. [GN] LATOYA HUGHES: Court Dismisses Dahl Suit w/ Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dahl v. Hughes, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01182 (S.D. Ill.), the Court Filed April 29, 2024 entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. -- The Plaintiff's pending motion for counsel and class certification is denied as moot. -- The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and to close this case. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.[CC] LIDO DAO: Votes to Appoint Dolphin CL to Respond to Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Coingape reports that in the aftermath of a class-action lawsuit filed against Lido DAO in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the Ethereum staking service has recently started voting to appoint an entity to respond to the pending class-action litigation. The lawsuit, filed on April 3 this year, alleges Lido DAO to have violated security laws as it operates as a "general partnership" that "runs an Ethereum staking business." Particularly, LDO tokens or related transactions are unlawfully offered or sold to the public, the plaintiff argued. This legal development has sent shockwaves across the industry. Lido DAO Starts Voting: Here's Why On June 27, the U.S. court ruled that the legal process had been served adequately on Lido DAO via public postings by the plaintiffs. The staking service provider was offered 14 days to respond. A failure to respond within the given time frame could lead to a default judgment by the court, based on the plaintiffs' claims. This potential outcome poses a significant threat to the project. In an effort to mitigate these risks, the community has initiated a voting process to appoint an entity to respond to the pending class-action lawsuit. The voting went live on snapshot.org, promptly gaining significant traction across the broader market. Notably, the proposal suggests authorizing Dolphin CL, LLC to file a motion to dismiss the class-action suit. However, it's clarified that Dolphin CL will not serve as the general representative or proxy of Lido DAO and will only file a motion on its behalf. Meanwhile, at press time, the proposal's odds of passing appear to have gained significant favor. A staggering 51 million voted yes, amounting to 100% of total votes. Not a single vote was against the proposal. Also, the community spotlighted that not passing the proposal could present further risks to the project, as although not sure, the default judgment could hamper community operations. In the interim, LDO, the native token of Lido DAO, traded sluggishly, coinciding with legal uncertainty. LDO Price Dips As of writing, the LDO price dipped 4.12% over the past day despite the broader market uptrend. The token traded at $1.55, with its daily lows and peaks being $1.55 and $1.63, respectively. The weekly chart showed a 20.86% plunge in value, while the monthly chart showed a 30.66% fall. This sluggish price action coincides with the lawsuit, sparking bearish sentiments. It's worth noting that cryptocurrencies such as XRP and ETH are prime examples of how regulatory uncertainty negatively impacts price. Crypto market enthusiasts await further developments on the matter. [GN] LINEAR MORTGAGE: Powell Enforces Bankruptcy Court Discharge Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE GILLARD-POWELL v. LINEAR MORTGAGE, LLC, and MADISON MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05828 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2024) is an action seeking to recover damages on behalf of a Class and Subclass of persons who suffered harm at the conduct of Defendants and to enforce a Bankruptcy Court discharge order entered on January 18, 2022, and a confirmation order entered on March 9, 2017. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully chosen not to comply with the Court's orders. On Sept. 30, 2016, Powell filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Powell's bankruptcy attorneys were Semrad Law LLC. Prior to filing Chapter 13, Powell incurred a debt to Neighborhood Lending Services ("NLS") to purchase real property to be used as her residence located at 426 W. 96th Street, Chicago, IL 60620 (the "property"), and granted NLS a second-position security interest in the real property through a perfected lien. NLS received a copy of the first proposed Chapter 13 plan, the later Modified Chapter 13 plans, as well as other documents pertaining to Powell's bankruptcy. On Nov. 3, 2016, Powell through counsel filed a Motion to Determine Value of Claim Secured by a Lien on Estate Property (the "Valuation Motion"). The Motion sought to have the property valued at $93,000.00, with a first lien encumbering the property in the amount of $126,352.00, thus rendering the second lien wholly unsecured. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to release the lien and provide clear title to Powell (as required by the Bankruptcy Court's Order of Confirmation, Valuation Order, and under state law), Powell has suffered injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature including, but not limited to: inability to refinance the property; inability to obtain a loan to purchase a vehicle, inability to obtain other credit, and monies spent trying to convince Defendants to release the lien, including but not limited to, engaging an attorney to draft letters to Defendants, physical injuries, and anger, frustration, and sleeplessness; and having to engage attorneys to pursue litigation, says the suit. The systematic violations of the bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy laws as alleged further justify and enhance the necessity for the award of substantial and significant punitive damages in this case. Because Defendants' wrongful conduct is widespread, this case should be certified for class action treatment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class defined as follows: Class "All Debtors (1) who received a discharge of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Illinois, (2) completed all plan payments, (3) which plan payments fully satisfied an indebtedness secured by real property, and (4) and for which either Defendant failed to release the lien on the real property within 30 days after the indebtedness was fully satisfied." The Illinois Subclass The Plaintiff additionally seeks to represent a Subclass defined as follows: "All Debtors (1) who received a discharge of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Illinois (2) who had an indebtedness secured by real property located in Illinois, or who were residents of Illinois, (3) completed all plan payments, (4) which plan payments fully satisfied an indebtedness secured by real property, and (5) for which either Defendant failed to release the lien on the real property within 30 days after the indebtedness was fully satisfied." Excluded from the Class and Subclass are: (1) Defendants, Defendants' agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which a Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and those entities' current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class and Subclass definitions with greater specificity or division after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Mr. Powell has been allegedly damaged and seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief based on Defendants' willful choice not to comply with the Court's orders. Powell seeks damages for the same conduct under Illinois state law. The Plaintiff is a "Debtor" as that term is defined at 11 U.S.C. section 101(13) under Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the United State Code in Bankruptcy Case No. 16-31221 filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Linear is a for-profit Florida limited liability company not registered to conduct business in the State of Illinois. Madison is a for-profit limited liability company incorporated in Nevada and registered to conduct business in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Erik A. Martin, Esq. 7140 S. St. Lawrence Avenue, Suite 2 Chicago, IL 60619 Telephone: (312) 547-9087 E-mail: Erikamartin22@live.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attomeyzim.com LOCUST GROVE: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property to Disabled --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual v. LOCUST GROVE PLAZA LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-07544 (D.N.J., July 3, 2024) is a class action brought against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Ms. Cheli has visited the Property -- and each of the tenant spaces -- on several occasions over the years, her last visit as a patron occurred on April 10, 2024. Ms. Cheli visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that the Property was littered with violations of the ADA, both in architecture and policy. The Plaintiff requires thorough inspection of the Defendant's place of public accommodation in order to photograph and measure the architectural barriers which exist at the Property in violation of the ADA/LAD. The Defendant has allegedly discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other mobility impaired persons, by denying access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility in violation of the ADA. Additionally, the Defendant continues to discriminate against the Plaintiff, and other mobility impaired persons, by failing to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, says the suit. Ms. Cheli is an individual with disabilities. She requires, at all times, the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. The Defendant owns and/or operates a shopping center/plaza with several tenant spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com LORRAINE SCHWARTZ: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LORRAINE E. SCHWARTZ INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05110 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website "https://lorraineschwartz.com" to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on June 3, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Lucky Monkey Necklace in Black Gold from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant’s Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, added the lawsuit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Murphy is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Lorraine is engaged in the wholesale distribution of jewelry, precious stones and metals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal LYFT INC: WAVs Class Action Suit Underway in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Tony Aiello of CBS News reports that testimony in a class action lawsuit is underway in a case that could impact thousands of people who use wheelchairs. They want the rideshare company Lyft to provide more WAVs, or wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say Lyft discriminates against wheelchair users outside of New York City by blocking their request for WAVs. Lyft provides them in the five boroughs and eight other markets. When WAVs are requested in Westchester, Nassau and other counties, users are connected to paratransit and other providers. "Lyft says it "has actively explored finding solutions to the lack of WAVs, but finding enough of these types of vehicles remains a challenge." Plaintiffs have proposed a 10-cent surcharge on all Lyft rides to expand access to WAVs. Lyft argues it's actually not a transportation company Lyft has also argued it's a technology company, not a transportation company, and can't require independent drivers to buy WAVs, which are expensive. Matthew Hebel owns rideawav.com. He said he believes Lyft should provide accessible vehicles even though it would mean more competition. "I think there's enough demand out there for everybody. This lawsuit is correct with what they're doing," Hebel said. "It's the right thing to do" Seven years after the Lyft lawsuit was filed, Donna Ponessa wasn't going to miss day one of testimony. "It's very sad that it actually got this far. I wish that it would have just kind of been settled amicably. It's the right thing to do," Ponessa said. "It's a right that we should be able to take transportation and we're being denied by Lyft," wheelchair user Mary Maycuk added. A federal judge will sort it all out in this non-jury trial. [GN] MCGEE AIR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Olney Due Aug. 11, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA OLNEY, v. McGEE AIR SERVICES INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-05300-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Peterson entered an order setting trial date and pretrial schedule as follows: Event Date Trial to the bench to begin at 9:00 a.m. Feb. 23, 2026 Deadline for joining additional parties July 30, 2024 Deadline for amended pleadings Sept. 9, 2024 Reports of expert witnesses under June 23, 2025 FRCP 26(a)(2) due All motions related to discovery must be July 7, 2025 filed by this date and noted for consideration no later than the third Friday thereafter Rebuttal expert disclosures under July 28, 2025 FRCP 26(a)(2) due Discovery to be completed by Aug. 11, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for Aug. 11, 2025 Class Certification and Report of Class Certification Expert Agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial Order due Feb. 2, 2026 Final Pretrial conference Feb. 13, 2026 McGee Air is an airline service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v3MjdU at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2873: Wallin Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN WALLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03801-RMG (D.S.C., July 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with bladder cancer and prostate cancer, says the suit. The Wallin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Reply Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Consumer Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting interim administrative motion to provisionally file under seal consumer Plaintiffs' reply in support of renewed motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel and supporting materials. Pursuant to the Court's Sept. 20, 2023, and March 25, 2024 Orders granting the parties' stipulation to modify the sealing procedures applicable to class certification, Daubert, and other briefing, Dkt. Nos. 656 & 745, Consumer Plaintiffs submit this interim administrative motion to provisionally file under seal the unredacted versions of Consumer Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, certain exhibits submitted as attachments to the declaration of Kevin Y. Teruya in support thereof, and the Abridged Rebuttal Expert Declaration of Nicholas Economides, Ph.D. in Support of Renewed Motion to Certify Consumer Class. Consistent with the Court's Sept. 20, 2023 and March 25, 2024 Orders, Consumer Plaintiffs will coordinate with Facebook and non-parties to file an omnibus sealing motion. In the interim, Consumers request that the Court provisionally maintain under seal the requested materials. Meta operates as a social technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7meSn4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com kjpozan@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com - and - Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Scott L. Watson, Esq. Claire D. Hausman, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq. Michelle Schmit, Esq. Manisha M. Sheth, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com scottwatson@quinnemanuel.com clairehausman@quinnemanuel.com brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT: Damare Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE DAMARE, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT AFFORDABLE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00554-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of classes and subclasses defined as: "All residents who live at the same address of the Plaintiff and the Defendants who had their contractually agreed upon parking rights unlawfully stripped and taken away from them after said rights were legally promised pursuant to a legally enforceable agreement." The Plaintiffs consist of 70 residents who have been stripped of their right to park that was contractually agreed upon within their lease agreements. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs further request that a briefing schedule be set to ensure the prompt and efficient resolution of this Motion. In further support of this motion, the Plaintiff is submitting a separate memorandum of law. Michaels provides property management services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lsxb8z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Granfeldt, Esq. Scott Seville, Esq. ROBBINS AND SEVILLE, LLC 714 N. Main St. Crown Point, IN 46307 Telephone: (219) 333-2375 Facsimile: (219) 333-2375 E-mail: scott.granfeldt@roseattorneys.com scott.seville@roseattorneys.com MISSISSIPPI: Discovery in Wallace Due April 17, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC WALLACE, et al., v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00516-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge LaKeysha Greer Isaac entered a third amended class certification scheduling order: -- Expert witnesses for class certification, if any, shall be disclosed, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, by: for Plaintiffs' side: Oct. 18, 2024 for Defendants' side: Feb. 11, 2025 -- Discovery must be completed by: April 17, 2025 -- Daubert motions challenging the parties' June 2, 2025 class certification experts must be filed by: -- Plaintiffs' side motion for class July 31, 2025 certification and memorandum shall be filed by: Mississippi Department of Corrections is a state agency of Mississippi that operates prisons. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X9aHUO at no extra charge.[CC] MOBILITYWARE LLC: Class Settlement Provides Non-Monetary Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a $100,000 MobilityWare settlement provides non-monetary benefits for users of the company's various mobile apps. The settlement benefits individuals who played one or more MobilityWare gaming apps on a mobile device between July 17, 2015, and June 11, 2024. MobilityWare apps include: -- Solitaire -- Tripeaks Solitaire -- Pyramid Solitaire -- FreeCell Solitaire -- Crown Solitaire -- Spider Solitaire -- Spider Go Solitaire -- Castle Solitaire -- Addiction Solitaire -- Mahjong Solitaire -- Yukon Russian Solitaire Game -- Aces Up Solitaire -- Destination Solitaire -- Hearts Card Game -- Puzzle Cats -- Sudoku Simple -- Spades Card Game -- Tropical Treats -- Word Wiz -- Word Warp -- Sunny Shapes -- Word Search -- Tetra Block -- Puzzle Game -- Dice Merge Puzzle Master -- Blackjack -- Match & Rescue -- Match 3 Game -- Vegas Blvd Slots -- Block Party Bingo -- 52 Card Pick-up -- Excite Bear -- Animal Bikers -- Monopoly Solitaire According to the class action lawsuit, MobilityWare collected user information without consent and sold it to third parties for targeted advertising purposes. MobilityWare is a game developer that produces solitaire apps and other mobile games. MobilityWare hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $100,000 to resolve the settlement. Class members will not receive payments under the MobilityWare settlement. Instead, MobilityWare agreed to update its apps to include a permanent, clear pop-up notification regarding user privacy rights and collection of personal information. The $100,000 settlement fund will be split equally between two cy pres recipients: the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. These non-profit organizations advocate for user privacy and related research. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 19, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Sept. 18, 2024. No claim form is required to benefit from the MobilityWare settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Individuals who played one or more MobilityWare gaming apps on a mobile device between July 17, 2015, and June 11, 2024. Potential Award Non-monetary benefits Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion Deadline 08/19/2024 Case Name Komins v. Yonamine, et al., Case No. 19STCV24865, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County Final Hearing 09/18/2024 Settlement Website MobilityWareClassAction.com Claims Administrator Komins v. Yonamine, et al. Notice Administrator c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 (866) 742-4955 Class Counsel Ronald A Marron Lilach Halperin LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A MARRON 651 Arroyo Dr San Diego, CA 92103 Defense Counsel Robert L Wallan Carolyn S Toto PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 [GN] MUNICIPAL PARKING: Nelson Alleges Illegal Personal Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- PEGGY NELSON and CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00913-JHE (N.D. Ala., July 10, 2024) is a privacy class action lawsuit against MPS for allegedly obtaining and using statutorily protected personal information -- including names, addresses, and telephone numbers -- from the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles, and other states' departments of motor vehicles, in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, MPS's technology and systems allow its customers to manage and enforce their parking lots and decks (many of which are gateless and without a parking attendant) around the clock with cameras to ensure driver compliance. These cameras leverage License Plate Recognition ("LPR") technology. MPS's technology allows its customers to identify alleged violators by their license plates. MPS then distributes "notices" to alleged violators demanding payment for expired or unauthorized parking. Essentially, MPS's system is intended to automate parking lots using sophisticated cameras and other technologies that capture the license plate information of every vehicle that enters and exits the lot. The system is designed to track how long vehicles stay in the parking lot and whether the driver of the vehicle paid for parking through a website or mobile application, says the suit. MPS manages parking lot enforcement in many states across the United States. MPS also contracts with other parking management companies (MPS's "Partners") to act as their "enforcement vendor," which includes accessing DMV motor vehicle records on behalf of the Partners and sending out collections "Notices" or "Citations" to persons who allegedly owe them money for parking violations. The parking lots operated by MPS and its Partners have no entrance gates or other physical barriers indicating that the lot is private and monitored by cameras. Instead, signage is posted sporadically around the edges of the lots. There are no barriers at the exits, either. Many people -- like Ms. Nelson -- do not realize that the parking lots that were previously free are now paid lots being monitored by MPS or MPS's Partner's, the suit further asserts. Plaintiff Williams was mistakenly told by the restaurant he was dining at that the MPS-operated parking lot was free for its patrons. MPS is a business that provides "automated parking enforcement" to owners and/or operators of parking lots and decks nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com NIKE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 19 -------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your NIKE, Inc. (NYSE:NKE) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/nike-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=89590&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against NIKE, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 19, 2021 and March 21, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) NIKE's direct-to-consumer strategy was unable to generate sustainable revenue growth; (2) NIKE's purported competitive advantages were unable to protect the Company from intense competitive pressures after NIKE largely disengaged from many of its wholesale and retail partners to focus on the Company's direct-to-consumer strategy; and (3) as a result, defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in NIKE stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/nike-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=89590&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Schulte Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SCHULTE JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and GEISINGER HEALTH d/b/a GEISINGER HEALTH FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01082-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within Nuance's computer systems following a data breach discovered on or around November 29, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Nuance Communications, Inc. is a computer software technology corporation located in Burlington, Massachusetts. Geisinger Health, doing business as Geisinger Health Foundation, is a regional health care provider headquartered in Danville, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: gary@lcllp.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com OAK HILL: Lacy Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL LACY, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. OAK HILL CONTRACTORS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01660 (S.D. Ill., July 3, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Oak Hill pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Oak Hill allegedly did not pay Mr. Lacy for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked, at the required and/or agreed upon rates -- based on all remuneration received. Oak Hill applied its illegal pre/post shift "off the clock" policy, meal deduction policy, and bonus pay scheme to the Hourly Employees regardless of any alleged individualized factors, such as specific job title or precise geographic location. As a result, Mr. Lacy and the other Hourly Employees did not receive overtime wages at the premium rates required by the FLSA for all overtime hours worked, says the suit. Mr. Lacy worked for Oak Hill as an equipment operator in Illinois from January 2022 through February 2024. Oak Hill is an "earth moving and site works company located in southern Illinois" that provides services including mass excavation, site work, and land clearing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Kent Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN KENT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated V. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Case No. 24CV082441 (Cal. Super., July 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Representative Plaintiffs and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") stored within Defendant's information network. The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Representative Plaintiff and tens of thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant on June 29, 2024. While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as June 29, 2024, the Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until June 30, 2024, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from the Defendant informing them of it, the Plaintiff says. The Representative Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using and selling the Representative Plaintiffs Private Information, the suit asserts. Furthermore, the Representative Plaintiff allegedly suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse resulting from the Representative Plaintiffs Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals. The Plaintiff is an adult individual and was 21 a resident and citizen of the State of California. The Defendant is a credit union serving Northern California, particularly serving the San Francisco Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Klammer Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AVISHALOM KLAMMER and TANGIE STRONG, and all others similarly situated v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Case No. 24CV082781 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 9, 2024) is a class action against Patelco for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs’ and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII) stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused, and continues to cause, to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant on June 4, 2024, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept under-protected by Defendant (the "Data Breach"). While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as June 29, 2024, Defendant did not begin informing victims on the Data Breach until June 30, 2024, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiffs' and Class Members’ Private Information. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant in order to receive services. Thus, Defendant created, collected, and stored Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information with the reasonable expectation and mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access, the suit added. The Defendant is a credit union in California, serving particularly the San Francisco Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (317) 695-1712 E-mail: chris@jenningspllc.com tyler@jenningspllc.com PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McGinity Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN MCGINITY, and all others similarly situated v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:24-cv-04154 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2024) is a class action against Patelco for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs’ and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII) stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused, and continues to cause, to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant on June 4, 2024, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept under-protected by Defendant (the "Data Breach"). While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as June 29, 2024, Defendant did not begin informing victims on the Data Breach until June 30, 2024, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential Private Information, says the suit. Furthermore, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant in order to receive services. Thus, Defendant created, collected, and stored Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information with the reasonable expectation and mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access, the suit added. The Defendant is a credit union in California, serving particularly the San Francisco Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com PATELCO CREDIT: Schubert Probes Ransomware Attack and Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is investigating a ransomware attack and data breach affecting the private information of approximately 500,000 members of Patelco Credit Union, a California-based credit union. On June 29, 2024, Patelco experienced a ransomware attack, in which hackers gained access to its systems, blocked access, and then demanded a ransom payment to restore its systems and return stolen data. As a result, many of Patelco's systems were shut down. The credit union's members have been locked out of electronic payments, direct deposits, and transfers since the beginning of the attack. According to news reports, Patelco's members were forced to wait in lines to use bank ATMs and were unable to access statement balances or online banking. Patelco has also reportedly limited debit and credit card transactions. The consequences for Patelco's members have been severe. Many have faced bounced payments and late-payment and overdraft fees, and some members' credit scores may be negatively impacted by Patelco's failures. Patelco has also failed to inform its members whether their private information was stolen by the hackers as part of the attack. Patelco requires its members to provide highly sensitive data, including names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account information, which may now be at serious risk. If your private information was impacted by this incident, you may be at risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other serious violations of your privacy. As a result, you may be entitled to money damages and an injunction requiring changes to Patelco's cybersecurity practices. [GN] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 5, 2024, in Jones, et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 23-CV-1082, 2024 WL 3315989 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 2024), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a class action complaint alleging that a company's use of a third party AI-powered chat feature embedded in the company's website aided and abetted an interception in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). Judge Lorenz was unpersuaded by the company's arguments that the third-party functioned as an extension of the company rather than as a third-party eavesdropper. Instead, the Court found that the complaint had sufficient facts to plausibly allege that the third party used the chats to improve its own AI algorithm and thus was more akin to a third-party eavesdropper for which the company could be held liable for aiding and abetting wiretapping under the CIPA. Background This case is one of the hundreds of class actions that plaintiffs have filed nationwide alleging that third-party AI-powered software embedded in defendants' websites or other processes and technologies captured plaintiffs' information and sent it to the third party. A common claim raised in these cases is a claim under federal or state wiretap acts and seeking hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in statutory damages. No wiretap claim can succeed, however, where the plaintiff has consented to the embedded technology's receipt of their communications. See, e.g., Smith v. Facebook, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 3d 943, 955 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (dismissing CIPA claim involving embedded Meta Pixel technology because plaintiffs consented to alleged interceptions by Meta via their Facebook user agreements). In Jones, Plaintiffs brought suit against an exercise equipment and media company. According to Plaintiffs, the defendant company used third-party software embedded in its website's chat feature. Plaintiffs further alleged that the software routed the communications directly to the third party without Plaintiffs' consent, thereby allowing the third party to use the content of the communications to "to improve the technological function and capabilities of its proprietary, patented artificial intelligence software." Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs alleged a claim for aiding and abetting an unlawful interception and use of the intercepted information under California's wiretapping statute, CIPA Sec. 631. Although Plaintiffs did not allege any actual damages, see ECF No. 1, the statutory damages they sought totaled at least $1 billion. (alleging hundreds of thousands of class members); Cal. Penal Code. Sec. 637.2 (setting forth statutory damages of $5,000 per violation). The company moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the "party exception" to CIPA applied because the third-party software "functions as an extension of [the company] rather than as a third-party eavesdropper." The Court's Opinion The Court denied the company's motion and allowed Plaintiffs' CIPA claim to proceed to discovery. The CIPA is a one-party consent statute, meaning that there is no liability under the statute for any party to the communication. To answer the question for purposes of CIPA's party exception of whether the embedded chat software provider was more akin to a party or a third-party eavesdropper, the Court found that courts look to the "technical context of the case." As the Court explained, a software provider can be held liable as a third party under CIPA if that entity listens in on a consensual conversation where the entity "uses the collected data for its own commercial purposes." Id. By contrast, the Court further explained, if the software provider merely collects, refines, and relays the information obtained on the company website back to the company "in aid of [defendant's] business" then it functions as a tool and not as a third party. Guided by this framework, the Court found sufficient allegations that the software provider used the chats collected on the company's website for its own purposes of improving its AI-driven algorithm. Therefore, according to the Court, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the software provider was "more than a mere 'extension'" of the company, such that CIPA's party exemption did not apply and Plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim for the company's aiding and abetting of the software provider's wiretap violation. Implications For Companies The Court's opinion serves as a cautionary tale for companies using third-party AI-powered processes and technologies that collect customer communications and information. As the ruling shows, litigation risk associated with companies' use of third-party AI-powered algorithms is not limited to complaints alleging damaging outcomes such as discriminatory impacts, such as plaintiffs alleged in Louis v. Saferent Sols., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 3d 19, 41 (D. Mass. 2023) (denying motion to dismiss claim under Fair Housing Act against landlord in conjunction with landlord's use of algorithm used to calculate risk of leasing a property to a particular tenant). In addition, companies face the risk of high-stakes claims for statutory damages under wiretap statutes associated with companies' use of third-party AI-powered algorithms embedded in their websites, even if the third party's only use of the algorithm is to improve the algorithm and even if no actual damages are alleged. As AI-related technologies continue their growth spurt, and litigation in this area spurts accordingly, organizations should consider in light of Jones whether to modify their website terms of use, data privacy policies, and all other notices to the organizations' website visitors and customers to describe the organization's use of AI in additional detail. Doing so could deter or help defend a future AI class action lawsuit similar to the many that are being filed, alleging omission of such additional details, raising claims brought under various states' wiretap acts and consumer fraud acts, and seeking multimillion-dollar and billion-dollar statutory damages. [GN] PEOPLECONNECT INC: Court Stays Nolen Proceedings Pending Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA NOLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting to stay proceedings in this case pending the resolution of the interlocutory appeal now before the Ninth Circuit, including the Court's Order directing the Parties to conduct and complete notice to the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B). On Dec. 14, 2023, the Court conditionally granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Dec. 28, 2023, PeopleConnect petitioned to the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal. On May 8, 2024, the Parties submitted a joint status report regarding the class definition and protocol for providing notice to the class. Peopleconnect provides online social network services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YHOSGU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com - and - Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN 102 Bergen St. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (347) 645-0464 E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin T. Halbig, Esq. Debbie L. Berman, Esq. Wade A. Thomson, Esq. Clifford W. Berlow, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 525 Market Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 267-6800 Facsimile: (628) 267-6859 E-mail: bhalbig@jenner.com dberman@jenner.com wthomson@jenner.com cberlow@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD d/b/a PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE AND GRILLE; and CHRISTOPHER V. PERRY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00731 (W.D. Tex., June 28, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Allen was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Perry's Restaurants Ltd. owns and operates a chain of steakhouse restaurants known as Perry's Steakhouse and Grille. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com PIRDIE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PIRDIE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05224 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.pirdiegolf.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. He has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Pirdie online retail store, as well as the Pirdie interactive Website and advertises, markets, and oper-ates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal PIZZA CHEF: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL, Essa Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tamer Essa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Pizza Chef, Inc., Reyed Restaurant Corp., Moustafa M. Ayad, Edward Shapiro, Peter Coakley, and Sam Elsendiouny, Case No. 1:24-cv-04681 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. From October 2023 to Feb. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff worked six days per week, for a total period of 66 hours during each of the weeks, respectively. However, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff was paid a flat rate of $18 per hour, regardless of how many hours he worked each week, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Essa was employed as a non-managerial employee at Pizza Chef from Oct. 2023 to March 10, 2024. Pizza Chef offers a pizza, wings, sandwiches and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Levin-Epstein & Associates, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com POSC PAC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Robbins Due Oct. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robbins v. POSC PAC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11188 (D. Mass., Filed May 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order setting the following pretrial schedule: -- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. July 31, 2024 Civ. P. 26(a)(1) will be completed by: -- If there is disagreement as to the Sept. 20, 2024 delineation of the plaintiff class, class discovery will be completed by: -- Class certification motions will be filed by: Oct. 11, 2024 opposition by: Oct. 25, 2024 -- All fact discovery will be completed by: Nov. 22, 2024 -- All fact discovery will be completed by: Jan. 24, 2025 The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] PREMIUM PARKING: Kutylowski Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARC KUTYLOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PREMIUM PARKING SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01418 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2024) is a putative class action for violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly and without consent obtained Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal information, including their names and home addresses, from non-public motor vehicle state records, and used it to send parking tickets to Plaintiff's and the Class Members' homes. The Defendant's DPPA violations caused Plaintiff and the Class Members harm, including violations of their statutory privacy rights, harassment, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion in a space that is personal and private to Plaintiff and the Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and each member of the proposed Class, statutory damages under the DPPA in the amount of $2,500, reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other equitable relief as the court determines appropriate, including injunctive relief in the form of a prohibition on Defendants obtaining, using and disclosing personal information obtained from any department of motor vehicles to send surprise tickets through the mail to consumers' residences. The Defendant is a parking operator and parking-related technology company with over 750 locations throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Freeman, Esq. DAPEER LAW P.A. 415 N Camden Dr Ste 111 No. 551 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (323) 701-050 E-mail: Lisa@dapeer.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Khaner Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SETH KHANER, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:24-cv-07671-SRC-AME (D.N.J., July 10, 2024) rises from Prudential's failure to safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information -- together "PII/PHI" of over 2.5 million people, including Plaintiff and proposed Class Members. According to the complaint, Prudential stores a litany of highly sensitive PII and protected health information. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). On Feb. 12, 2024, Prudential disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission that a threat actor had gained unauthorized access to Prudential's systems. Prudential first believed that the threat actor had accessed Prudential's administrative, user data and a small percentage of employees and contractors' user accounts. Prudential assured the public that data breach was not "material" and that based on its investigation to date, there was no evidence that the threat actor had taken customer or client data. Nearly two months later, in a filing with the Maine Attorney General's Office, Prudential first disclosed that the threat actor had stolen more than 36,000 individual's information. However, on July 2, 2024, Prudential revealed that the breach had actually compromised the data of more than 2.5 million individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Prudential is an insurance company providing insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Hillary Fidler, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com hfidler@seegerweiss.com RHINO ENTERTAINMENT: Delacruz Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RHINO ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05106 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.arethafranklin.net/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text, or a text equivalent; empty links that contain no text; redundant links where adjacent links go to the same url address; and linked images missing alt-text, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rhino Entertainment LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal RITMO LATINO: Robles Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE ROBLES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated V. RITMO LATINO WIRELESS LLC., a New Jersy Limited Liability Company; and DOES 150, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV16964 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2024) alleges that Defendant failed to pay all overtime compensation and sick pay wages at the proper legal rates by failing to calculate the "regular rate of pay" correctly. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's meal and rest period policies and practices failed to allow and permit aggrieved employees to take all compliant and timely meal and rest periods or pay premium wages at the "regular rate of pay" in lieu thereof. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to provide aggrieved employees with accurate written itemized wage statements 17 in violation of Labor Code section 226(a), failed to reimburse all necessary business expenses incurred, and failed to timely pay all final wages upon separation of employment in violation of Labor Code sections 201-203. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee with the title of "Retail Sales Associate" beginning on July 22, 2022, out of its Palmdale, California, location. The Defendant is a T-Mobile retainer and is one of T‑Mobile's top-performing TPR partners nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 975-1493 Facsimile: (310) 675-0861 - and - Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (818) 456-6168 Facsimile: (888) 505-0868 E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com ROSEWOOD REALTY: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Petrolino Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH PETROLINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSEWOOD REALTY GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80813-AMC (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing telemarketing cold calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry, including to the Plaintiff and Class members, without their prior express written consent, and continuing to place those calls even after the Plaintiff requested to not receive future calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful telemarketing calls, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered concrete injury and actual damages, including inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion upon seclusion, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, the suit says. Rosewood Realty Group Inc. is a commercial brokerage firm based in Nassau County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (561) 789-4413 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Seth Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 Email: seth@lehrmanlaw.com SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: All Discovery Due March 11, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHYNNA CALDWELL, v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02756-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any initial disclosures shall be made by: Aug. 30, 2024 -- The parties agree that the motion for court Nov. 1, 2024 authorized notice and class certification shall be filed by: -- All discovery shall be completed by: March 11, 2025 The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate her and similarly situated call center representatives ("CSRs") for all compensable time, including time spent performing essential work tasks such as turning on or waking up their computer; logging into their computer with a username and password; connecting to Defendant's virtual private network ("VPN"), opening and logging into various programs and applications that CSRs needed to perform their job duties, following up on emails, updating workloads, and logging out of and shutting down the essential computer software programs and applications. The Plaintiff further alleges that this off-the-clock work should have been paid at the federally mandated rate of 1.5 times her and each Putative Plaintiff's regular hourly wage, including a shift differential where applicable, in workweeks where the Plaintiff and other Putative Plaintiffs worked 40 hours or more, or close enough to 40 hours to have worked over 40 hours when considering the uncompensated off-the-clock work time, and that all "gap time" should have been paid at the Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate. -- Settlement The Plaintiff(s) will a make a settlement demand within 30 days of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for court authorized notice. The Defendant will respond withing 30 days to Plaintiff's demand. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The parties understand that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement conference in May 2025. Safelite is engaged in the retail sale of paint, glass, and wallpaper. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1lHF3L at no extra charge.[CC] SALESFORCE INC: Bleichmar Probes Violations of the Securities Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into Salesforce, Inc. (NYSE:CRM) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Salesforce, you are encouraged to submit your information athttps://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/salesforce-inc. Why Did Salesforce's Stock Drop? On May 29, 2024, Salesforce reported its fiscal Q1 2025 financial results. In pertinent part, Salesforce's reported $9.13 billion in revenue came in below the midpoint of its previously issued guidance range and the current remaining performance obligation growth rate-a key bookings metric-came in below the company's outlook. Salesforce also issued fiscal Q2 2025 revenue guidance of $9.2 to $9.25 billion, below consensus estimates. As a result, Salesforce's stock price declined over 20% at the close of trading on May 30, 2024. BFA is investigating whether Salesforce and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements to investors related to Salesforce's customer buying environment and/or the company's sales execution abilities. Submit your information here: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/salesforce-inc. What Can You Do? If you invested in Salesforce, Inc. you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Find out more by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/salesforce-inc Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com 212-789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors (pending court approval), as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Derails Mass Arbitration Tactics ----------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, and Ryan T. Garippo, writing for DuaneMorris report that On July 1, 2024, in Wallrich, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 23-2842, 2024 WL 3249646 (7th Cir. July, 1, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dealt a major blow to mass arbitrations. This decision strengthens protections for companies that utilize arbitration agreements as an effective way to limit their potential classwide exposure. The Seventh Circuit's opinion is required reading for any corporation utilizing arbitration programs. Case Background Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively "Samsung") are two affiliates that manufacture and sell consumer electronics. "When consumers purchase or use Samsung devices, they automatically agree to Samsung's terms and conditions." Like many other companies, Samsung's terms and conditions contain an arbitration provision, which specifies that "all disputes" between Samsung and its customers shall be arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"). Pursuant to those terms and conditions, "[a] group of 35,651 Illinois consumers . . . filed arbitration demands before the AAA alleging they purchased Samsung devices and that those devices unlawfully collected and stored sensitive biometric data in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act." This tactic -- commonly known as a mass arbitration demand -- is often used by plaintiffs' lawyers as an attempt to secure a quick settlement out of a defendant. The tactic is sometimes successful because a defendant is often forced to pay expensive arbitration filing fees in order to initiate an arbitration. Often it is more cost effective for the defendant simply to settle the claims altogether rather than pay the filing fees and other expenses of litigation. For this reason, numerous federal courts have held that while this tactic may be permissible, "mass arbitration interferes with the fundamental attributes of arbitration promoted by the [Federal Arbitration Act]." See, e.g., Lamour v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-CV-21449, 2017 WL 878712, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2017) (quotations and citations omitted). Against that backdrop, counsel for the claimants in Wallrich attempted to deploy mass arbitration tactics in this litigation. After the consumers filed their arbitration demands, "the AAA requested $4,125,000 from Samsung, representing Samsung's share of the initial administrative filing fees." Wallrich, 2024 WL 3249646, at *2. The only difference between this case and others was that Samsung refused to pay the fees. The AAA then offered the consumers the opportunity to pay the $4,125,000. They also declined. And, as a result, the AAA terminated the proceedings and paved the way for a federal class action lawsuit. Rather than pursue a class action, the consumers then "filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration" in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They sought, among other things, "an order compelling Samsung to pay its AAA filing fees and to arbitrate the claims." In support of that petition, the consumers submitted their: (1) "arbitration demands before the AAA"; (2) "copies of Samsung's terms and conditions"; (3) a spreadsheet containing the consumers' names and addresses; and (4) "the AAA's determination that the consumers had met the AAA filing requirements." The consumers did not submit any proof, however, that they were actually customers of Samsung. But regardless, the district court still entered an order compelling Samsung to pay the filing fees and to arbitrate the disputes. Samsung then appealed that decision. The Seventh Circuit's Opinion On appeal, the Seventh Circuit dealt a major blow to mass arbitration tactics and reversed the order of the district court. The Seventh Circuit held, in a unanimous opinion, that "the consumers effectively needed to present evidence that they were in fact Samsung customers" in order to arbitrate the dispute. It also held that the consumers had not met their burden of doing so. The Seventh Circuit explained that "arbitration demands are nothing more than allegations, much like a complaint filed in a district court." As such, they are not proof that the consumers were actually Samsung customers. Similarly, copies of the terms and conditions "do nothing to show that any of the consumers purchased a Samsung device" nor did the AAA's determination as to the filing requirements make such a showing either. And last, the Seventh Circuit explained that the "spreadsheet of only names and addresses likewise fails to show that any of those named were Samsung customers." Accordingly, none of the "evidence" submitted by the consumers was sufficient to address their burden. Further, the Seventh Circuit noted that the "consumers could have submitted almost anything to meet their burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement. For example, they could have submitted receipts, order numbers, or confirmation numbers from their purchases of Samsung devices. Or even more directly, they could have submitted declarations attesting to the allegations in their arbitration demands. They did not." The major difference, however, was that all 35,651 consumers would have needed to submit such proof. In the absence of such evidence in the record, the Seventh Circuit was left with no choice but to reverse the district court. The Seventh Circuit concluded that a motion to compel arbitration is akin to a motion for summary judgment and, therefore, "does not allow second chances." "The consumers had the opportunity to present their evidence, and they failed to do so." Consequently, the mass arbitration tactics on display here seem to have been permanently halted. Implications For Companies The importance of Wallrich, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. cannot be understated. Companies faced with mass arbitration threats can now force each and every purported claimant to submit proof that his claim is subject to an arbitration agreement. If a claimant does not come forward with such proof, the company may be able to refuse to pay any filing fees and avoid mass arbitration altogether. As a result, corporate counsel can rest easy knowing that it is more difficult for their arbitration agreements to be weaponized against them. That said, the importance of arbitration agreements also must be emphasized. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") is one of plaintiff's counsel's favorite litigation targets. When utilized on a class-wide basis, claims under the BIPA are defined by its "draconian exposure" and its "job-destroying liability." Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 216 N.E. 3d 918, 940 (Ill. 2023) (Overstreet, J., dissenting). However, if each BIPA plaintiff is required to arbitrate his claims individually, a company's exposure becomes significantly less and, in some circumstances, even de minimis. Accordingly, corporate counsel should also consider this factor as one of the benefits to implementing an arbitration program as an effective strategy to limit classwide relief. [GN] SEASTAR MEDICAL: Faces Forrest Class Suit in Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2024, that the Company faces the Forrest AK class suit in the United States District Court for the State of Colorado and will continue to defend itself from the lawsuit. On July 5, 2024, Forrest A K Wells (the "Plaintiff"), a purported stockholder of SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the State of Colorado (the "Class Action"), alleging that the Company and its management members made material misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's business and operations, including disclosures relating to FDA approval of product candidates of the Company, allegedly culminating in the restatement of the Company's consolidated financial statements as disclosed in the Form 8-K filed on March 27, 2024. The Class Action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants"), as well as claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Defendants. Among other remedies, the Class Action seeks to recover compensatory and other damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action. SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides medical devices to prevent respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and many other health issues can result in a dangerous cytokine storm. SeaStar Medical Holding serves customers worldwide. [BN] SEASTAR MEDICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against officers of SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation ("SeaStar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ICU or ICUCW). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information, regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, including allegations that: (i) SeaStar and/or Legacy SeaStar had deficient compliance controls and procedures related to the Humanitarian Device Exemption ("HDE") Application; (ii) accordingly, there were deficiencies with the HDE Application, the FDA was unlikely to approve the HDE Application in its present form, and the Selective Cytopheretic Device's regulatory prospects were overstated; (iii) SeaStar had downplayed the true scope and severity of deficiencies in its financial controls and procedures, while overstating Defendants' efforts to remediate the same; (iv) accordingly, SeaStar had failed to properly account for the classification of certain outstanding warrants and the Prepaid Forward Agreement; (v) as a result, SeaStar was likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; and (vi) accordingly, SeaStar's post-Merger business and financial prospects were overstated. If you bought shares of SeaStar between October 31, 2022 through March 26, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/seastar-medical-holding/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 3, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] SELENE FINANCE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by July 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Argona, et al., v. Selene Finance, LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension to file reply in support of motion to certify class. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply on or before July 22, 2024. The nature of suit states consumer credit. Selene is a loan servicer.[CC] SOUTH TEXAS ONCOLOGY: Russ Files Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against South Texas Oncology and Hematology, PLLC. The case is styled as Dee Vauda Russ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. South Texas Oncology and Hematology, PLLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00705-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex., June 25, 2024). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Non-Motor Vehicle. Texas Oncology provides comprehensive cancer treatment and compassionate cancer care to patients using leading-edge technologies and innovative treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Kykta, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-2325 Email: alex@ellzeylaw.com leigh@ellzeylaw.com jarrett@ellzeylaw.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Whipple v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04583 (D.S.C., Filed Sept. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to file response/reply to motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.[CC] STANDARD AUTO: Knuckles Alleges Illegal Predelivery Service Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY KNUCKLES, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. STANDARD AUTO OF TAMPA, LLC, Case No. 24-003046-CI (Fla. Jud. Cir. Ct., Pinellas County, July 9, 2024) seeks to recover actual damages as a result of the Dealership's violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Dealership allegedly violated Section 501.976(18), Florida Statutes when it charged Purchaser and the Predelivery Service Fee Class members for a Delivery & Handling' fee or an otherwise denominated predelivery service fee without having printed on all documents that include a line item for such predelivery service fee the following disclosure: This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and preparing documents related to the sale. This is an action for damages of greater than $50,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and for recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit. Mr. Knuckles is an individual who resides in Pinellas County, Florida. Standard Auto of Tampa, LLC, (the Dealership) sells used cars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger D. Mason, II, Esq. Autumn D. Carty, Esq. ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A. 551 5th Ave. N. Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (813) 304-2131 E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com acarty@flautolawyer.com paralegal@flautolawyer.com STARKA PROPERTIES: Marinelli Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starka Properties Management, LLC. The case is styled as Micheal Marinelli, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Starka Properties Management, LLC, Case No. CACE24008874 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 25, 2024). Starka Properties Management -- https://www.starkaproperties.com/ -- offers a fresh and friendly approach to third-party property management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-907-1136 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com STERLING JEWELERS: Walter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Jewelers Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer J. Walter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., Does 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. 24STCV16027 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 26, 2024). Sterling Jewelers, Inc. -- https://www.shopsterlingjewelers.com/ -- is an American specialty jewelry company headquartered in Akron, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Robles, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: erobles@aegislawfirm.com SUBARU CORP: Faces Young Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defect ---------------------------------------------------------- LAURA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUBARU CORPORATION, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07438 (D.N.J., July 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of vehicles with defective engines, including 2013-2016 Scion FR-S, 2017-2023 Toyota 86/GR86, or 2013-2023 Subaru BRZ vehicles. The engines suffer from low oil pressure and/or a loss of oil film, which starves the engines of oil, causing aggressive internal wear and damages internal engine components, ultimately leading to partial or complete engine failure and vehicle disablement. All Class Vehicles have the same or substantially similar engine with the engine defect. The Defendants knew about the engine defect from numerous consumer complaints, warranty claims, customer complaints submitted by dealers and their own internal records. Nevertheless, the Defendants have taken no action to correct the root cause of the defect in all Class Vehicles, regardless of whether its symptoms appear during or outside the limited warranty. Had the Plaintiff and other Class members known about the engine defect at the time of purchase or lease, they would not have purchased or leased their Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them, says the suit. Subaru Corporation is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Subaru of America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Subaru Corporation, with its principal place of business in Camden, New Jersey. Toyota Motor Corporation is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place of business in Japan. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned holding company of Toyota Motor Corporation, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Email: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com SURMODICS INC: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to GTCR LLC ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and investigated Surmodics, Inc. (Nasdaq: SRDX ), relating to its proposed sale to GTCR LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Surmodics, Inc. shareholders will receive $43.00 in cash per share of Surmodics stock they own. 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] T.R. MOORE: Mosier Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAH MOSIER Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. T.R. MOORE & ASSOCIATES and RON BROWN, Individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-00226-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn., July 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, and other damages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid security guards under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants allegedly routinely reduced ("shaved") compensable hours of Plaintiff and those similarly situated either by failing to record all of their compensable hours of work into their timekeeping system or by "editing-out" their compensable hours from their time keeping system within weekly pay periods during all times material to this Complaint. In addition, the Defendants required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to report to work and commence work thirty-minutes prior to the beginning of their assigned shifts but were not compensated for such thirty-minutes per shift at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this multi-plaintiff action, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and the following similarly situated persons: "All current and former hourly-paid security guards employed by the Defendants anywhere in the United States at any time during the applicable limitations period covered by this Multi-Plaintiff Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and who are Named Plaintiffs or elect to join this action pursuant to the FLSA." The Defendants provide security guard services for businesses and other entities in and around Chattanooga, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com TARKENTON SENIOR: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY PINN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TARKENTON SENIOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01962-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting the unopposed motion of the Plaintiff for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiff shall file her Motion for class certification on a date to be determined by this Court and set forth in any forthcoming Case Management Order issued by the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11rn1m at no extra charge.[CC] TARKENTON SENIOR: Pinn Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY PINN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TARKENTON SENIOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01962-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for enlargement of time to file her motion for class certification. Counsel for the Plaintiff certifies that he sought concurrence in the motion from counsel for the Defendant and that counsel for Defendant has no objection to a 60- day extension of the deadline, but opposes Plaintiff's request to stay or otherwise enlarge the time for filing of his motion for class certification until after the Rule 16 conference in this matter occurs to the extent it seeks more than 60 days. On May 6, 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this civil action by filing her Class Action Complaint. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5z3j5y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com TEAMSNAP INC: Faces Jovel Suit Over "Pay Junk Fees to Play" Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN JOVEL on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TEAMSNAP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01906-MEH (D. Colo., July 10, 2024) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from TeamSnap arising from its alleged deceptive and unfairly disclosed junk "Processing Fee" assessed on recreational sport registrations completed via Defendant's software. According to the complaint, the TeamSnap service is paid for by the youth sports organization that seeks to use the software, and parents or guardians of youth players are then instructed that they must use the TeamSnap service to register their children in the organization's sports offerings. TeamSnap makes it infeasible for parents or guardians from signing up in alternative manners that would allow them to avoid paying the Processing Fee. Through such agreements, TeamSnap acquires a captive audience of families who have no choice but to use their services, says the suit. It then imposes undisclosed, deceptive, and unfair junk fees on families who have no choice but to pay them. By this conduct, TeamSnap has engineered a "pay junk fees to play" scheme. Kids can't play their chosen youth sports unless their parents pay the junk fee unilaterally set by the Defendant with zero relationship to the service actually being provided. Throughout the entirety of the youth sports enrollment process, TeamSnap displays a single price for registration for a youth sport to the parent or guardian, without any additional fee. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiff proceed through check out without ever becoming aware of any additional fees assessed by Defendant. Then, at checkout, and only after consumers have completed a comprehensive enrollment process wherein a single price for the sport is displayed, TeamSnap surreptitiously imposes a so called "Processing Fee," which amounts to a percentage of the cost of the sport, the suit asserts. Allegedly, the Processing Fee is added very late in the registration process in order to ensure it is unseen by consumers like Plaintiff. It is false and deceptive for Defendant to surreptitiously add a "Processing Fee" at the end of the enrollment process, especially where it offers no explanation of the Processing Fee at any time during the enrollment or checkout process. The "Processing Fee" is only added without comment or description as a line item just before a purchase is completed after a multi-step process without any mention of the fee. TeamSnap offers sports management technology services to youth sports organizations throughout the United States. As part of its service, it provides youth sports leagues with an online enrollment platform through its TeamSnap service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-majkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com TOUCHSTONE BANKSHARES: M&A Probes Merger With First National Corp ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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. The firm is investigating Touchstone Bankshares, Inc. (Other OTC: TSBA), relating to its proposed merger with First National Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, TSBA shareholders are expected to receive 0.8122 shares of First National per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/touchstone-bankshares-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: 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] TOWERS AT PORTSIDE: Faces Association Suit Over Excessive Rent Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- PORTSIDE TOWERS WEST TENANT ASSOCIATION, PORTSIDE TOWERS EAST TENANT ASSOCIATION, KEVIN WELLER, JESSICA BRANN, MICHELE HIRSCH, and JOEL ROTHFUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE TOWERS AT PORTSIDE URBAN RENEWAL COMPANY, LLC, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL & EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07508 (D.N.J., July 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of charging rent to tenants at the buildings, located at 100 Warren Street, Jersey City, New Jersey and 155 Washington Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, well in excess of the applicable rent control rates, all the-while misrepresenting the rent control status of the buildings, despite that such buildings are not exempt from the applicable rent control laws, ordinances, and regulations. Despite the clear and unambiguous ruling of the City of Jersey City Rent Leveling Board (RLB), the Defendants continue to flout applicable law and disregard the rights of the tenants by continuing their unlawful scheme of imposing and collecting rents in excess of the appropriate base rent control amounts, including by issuing unlawful rent increases to current tenants, commencing eviction actions against tenants refusing to pay unlawfully charged rents and other fees, and entering into lease agreements with new tenants that include rents well in excess of the applicable rent control and rent leveling amounts, the suit says. Portside Towers West Tenant Association is an unincorporated tenant's association in New Jersey. Portside Towers East Tenant Association is an unincorporated tenant's association in New Jersey. The Towers at Portside Urban Renewal Company, LLC is a real estate owner in New Jersey. Equity Residential is a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT). Equity Residential Management, LLC is a rental apartment owner and operator, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mollie Hartman Lustig, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP One Elm Street, Suite 2 Westfield, NJ 07090 Email: mlustig@mclaughlinstern.com - and - Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. Jason Giaimo, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Email: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com - and - Eric J. Nemeth, Esq. ERIC J. NEMETH, P.C. 55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 Email: enemeth@ejcounsel.com - and - Neil D. Marotta, Esq. MAROTTA & GARVEY 3916 Bergenline Avenue, Suite 2200 Union City, NJ 07087 Email: mglawyers@aol.com TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND: May Face Suit Over Power Cut Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- RNZ reports that Transpower is defending not compensating Northland businesses hit by last month's major power cut when a pylon fell over. The Northland Chamber of Commerce is accusing the grid operator of doing a U-turn on compensation. But Transpower says it talked to local businesses in good faith and explored what compensation options might be possible. The pylon fell on 20 June when Omexom contractors removed too many nuts from bolts connecting the tower to a base plate during routine maintenance. David Knight, Transpower executive general manager strategy regulation and governance, said the state-owned company's liability for losses was not straightforward, and it was not practical for it to guarantee there will never be power cuts -- so businesses who think they have suffered losses as a result of the outage should lodge a claim with their insurance company. Northland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Darryn Fisher said Transpower was doing "a complete 180-degree flip" from its earlier position, making things more expensive and time-consuming for local businesses. "We were definitely having a good faith conversation about, you know, the pain that they had caused from the negligent actions of that tower falling over," he told Morning Report. "I think they realised the damage that they had done to Northland businesses and Northland as a brand." He said while businesses would have insurance, there was "a lot of fine print" in some contracts that meant some would not be covered in this particular instance. Asked if a power company would ever be able to guarantee continuity of supply, Fisher said the inquiry into what went wrong would show in this case, it was the result of negligence -- not an 'act of god'. "We're really looking forward to the outcome of that." He will be talking to "a number of ministers in the region", but said it could take "multiple years and multiple millions of dollars to resolve", with legislation favouring "the big guy" not small- to medium-sized businesses. Fisher said a class-action lawsuit was one option. MWIS Lawyers is gauging interest in such a potential case. Partner Juliet Golightly said individual claims against Transpower could cost more than any compensation was worth. "The issue is this -- it's very, very clear that both Transpower and the contractor are liable because the act of removing all the bolts from the pylon footings. . . obviously was negligent and it was foreseeable that the pylon might fall over and that if it did, that would take the power out for the whole of Northland," she told Midday Report. "But the difficulty here is the power imbalance. So any one individual business can't really take Transpower on, and they know that a class action is one way that businesses can get around that power imbalance, although it's not without its problems as well." Golightly said class action lawsuits were not common here because "we don't have legislation supporting class actions in New Zealand in the way they do in other jurisdictions, like Australia". She said there had not been a lot of response to a survey on a potential class action suit on the firm's website, but people had asked about it informally. "In terms of the time it would take to do a class action, all court proceedings take a long time. There are very long systemic delays in the High Court, which is where this would be, and a class action is not immune from those. "There's another step which would be required, which is to get the High Court to approve the class action." While it might take a long time, getting involved would not be difficult for businesses, she said. "It's gonna be quite a long time before you get any response. On the plus side, all you're doing is giving your name and contact details and saying, you know, "This is an estimate of my losses, and yes, please, if you launch your action, I'd like to be involved." "And then sometime later, if we got approval from the High Court, then usually I would think settlement would be likely on the horizon - and you just get a check in the mail, so to speak." Transpower responds Transpower's Knight on Tuesday, July 9, said in a statement retailers would be compensated "where these have appropriate evidence", via electricity retailers. "The situation for businesses is more complex as they are generally not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act." He said Transpower's discussions with the Northland Chamber of Commerce made it clear the "only practical avenue for businesses who think that they have suffered loss as a result of the outage is to lodge a claim through their insurance company". The insurance company could then engage with Transpower on their behalf, he said. It was not practical for Transpower to guarantee supply, he said, because if it was forced to pay out every time the power was cut, "it would significantly increase costs for offering these services, and these higher costs would ultimately be passed on to consumers". Knight said Transpower's own investigation into what happened on the day the pylon fell would be complete by the end of July. [GN] TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Waltrip Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTON WALTRIP, NATHANIEL COOLEY, JAMES ACEVEDO, and MELVIN SANCHEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS, INC., TRANSWOOD, INC., and TRANSWOOD CARRIERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00672 (D.N.M., July 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as truck drivers. TransWood Logistics, Inc. is a logistics firm based in Artesia, New Mexico. TransWood, Inc. is a logistics firm based in Artesia, New Mexico. TransWood Carriers, Inc. is a logistics firm based in Artesia, New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin W. Allen, Esq. WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP 440 Louisiana, Suite 590 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 224-1744 Facsimile: (713) 600-0037 Email: ballen@wallaceallen.com TWITTER INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Adler Reset to August 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EITAN ADLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP. Case No. 3:23-cv-01788-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification filing deadline and set briefing schedule: 1. The deadline for filing any motion for class certification is reset to Aug. 26, 2024; 2. The deadline for filing an opposition to the motion for class certification is Sept. 24, 2024; 3. The deadline for filing a reply in support of the class certification motion is Oct. 8, 2024; and 4. The hearing on the motion for class certification should be set for Nov. 7, 2024 or any later date convenient for the Court. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WepxxV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com bmanewith@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Kassia Stephenson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com TYSON FOODS: Sen. Hawley Probes Class Suit Over Plant Closure ------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Sweeney, writing for KFVS12, reports that Senator Josh Hawley weighs in on the class action lawsuit filed against Tyson Foods on behalf of dozens of local residents impacted by the closing of its chicken processing plant in Dexter. On Monday, July 8, Hawley sent a letter to Tyson CEO Donnie King. In it, Hawley said King personally assured him Tyson would not stop a competitor from buying the Dexter plant. But now, Hawley wrote, the class action suit alleges that statement was a lie. When I spoke to attorney Russell Oliver about the lawsuit, he told me most of the details of Tyson's 25-year property use agreement with Cal-Maine Foods are not being shared publicly. In his letter, Hawley told King that he should immediately make that information public and provide that information to the senator's office. Oliver said he and the farmers he represents are very grateful that Hawley continues to fight for them and the community of Dexter. [GN] UNION LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELA KRYSZCZAK and KATHLEEN LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees v. UNION LEAGUE GOLF CLUB AT TORRESDALE FRANKFORD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02934 (E.D. Pa., July 3, 2024) is class and collective action lawsuit against the Defendant, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA's and PMWA's minimum wage mandate by paying the Plaintiffs and other bartenders and servers less than $7.25 per hour even though such employees did not receive any tips. Alternatively, if the Restaurant Service Fees and Service Charges constitute tips, the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA (and forfeited its right to utilize a tip credit) by failing to notify the Plaintiffs and other bartenders and servers of its intent to use the tip credit and by retaining a portion of the Service Charges, says the suit. Plaintiffs Kryszczak and Lawson were employed by the Defendant as banquet servers at the Golf Club from December 2021 until January 2023 and from May 2022 until May 2024, respectively. The Defendant owns and operates the Union League Golf Club at Torresdale, which includes event, dining, and bar areas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 UNION SECURITY: Bid for Initial Approval of Settlement Withdrawn ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA AND MERAKEY, USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order that Plaintiff's motion for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement is withdrawn without prejudice to refile. Union offers a wide range of medical supplement plans. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hvEKwc at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: ARIPPA Seeks Review of EPA Final Decision -------------------------------------------------------- The Appalachian Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) petitions the appeals court for review of the final action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled "New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emissions Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule" in the lawsuit entitled Appalachian Region Independent Power Producers Association, Petitioner, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents, Case No. EPA-89FR39798. The petition was timely filed within 60 days of the publication. The ARIPPA is a non-profit trade association that represents a membership primarily comprised of electric generating plants using environmentally-friendly circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler technology to convert coal refuse and/or alternative fuels such as biomass into alternative energy and/or steam, with the resultant alkaline ash used to reclaim mine lands. ARIPPA was organized for the purpose of promoting the general interests of its member facilities. The appellate case is captioned Appalachian Region Independent Power Producers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 24-1222, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on June 26, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY is represented by: David Michael Flannery, Esq. Kathy G. Beckett, Esq. Keeleigh Scarlett Huffman, Esq. Edward Louis Kropp, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC 707 Virginia Street East Chase Tower, 17th Floor Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 353-8000 Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are represented by: Eric Gerig Hostetler, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 23986 L'Enfant Plaza Station Washington, DC 20026 - and - Elliot Higgins, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 150 M Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 598-0240 - and - Chloe Hamity Kolman, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 UNITED STATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Phillips Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01999 (D.D.C., July 10, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to safeguard and secure the personally identifiable information of data breach victims, including the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the information affected was provided by NRC's job applicants, including Plaintiff and Class Members, through an unauthorized exposure on NRC's SharePoint site without proper access restrictions (the "Data Breach"). NRC allows job applicants to create resume online, collects and maintains job applicants' sensitive PII in its possession for the purpose of human resources. The data exposed in the Data Breach includes some of the most sensitive types of data that unauthorized individuals or entities seek in order to commit fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendant's negligence, job applicants' sensitive and valuable PII had been exposed on NRC's SharePoint site without proper access restrictions, since in or before 2013, until approximately April 2024, says the suit. As a result of the alleged Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have experienced extreme identity theft and financial fraud attempts, incurred time and expenses to mitigate the same, have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of financial fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security system, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class Members, asserts claim for violation under the Privacy Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. NRC is an independent agency of the United States government, that was created by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com URBAN ANGLER: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN ANGLER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and for declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.urbanangler.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of navigation links, inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, hidden elements on the web page, inaccurate adequate labeling of form fields and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Urban Angler, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com VALVE CORP: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Reply Papers --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v. Valve Corporation (re VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulated motion regarding sealing of Daubert Motion and Class Certification reply papers. The Parties have met and conferred with respect to Plaintiffs’ upcoming Opposition to Valve’s Daubert Motion and Valve’s Reply in Support of its Daubert motion. The Parties expect that these briefs and their supporting exhibits will contain numerous references to materials designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Materials" under the August 16, 2022, Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties have agreed to the following procedure, and respectfully request the Court enter an order reflecting the Parties' stipulation. 1. Consistent with prior stipulated Orders, and pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), the Plaintiffs may initially file under seal their Opposition to Valve's Daubert Motion, including all exhibits and declarations on which they rely, and Valve may initially file under seal its Reply in Support of its Daubert Motion, including all exhibits and declarations on which it relies. 2. The Parties agree that the deadline for any party or non-party to move to seal materials associated with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Valve's Daubert Motion or Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification shall be extended to Aug. 7, 2024. The Parties further agree that (1) any responses from parties and non-parties must be filed by Aug. 21, 2024, and (2) any replies must be filed by Aug. 28, 2024. 3. The Parties shall meet and confer and jointly file redacted public versions of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Valve's Daubert Motion, Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification, and all supporting materials by Sept. 4, 2024, redacting all material that any party or non-party moved to seal. 4. The Parties agree that the deadline for any party or non-party to move to seal materials associated with Valve's Reply in Support of Its Daubert Motion shall be Sept. 5, 2024. The Parties further agree that (1) any responses from parties and non-parties must be filed by Sept. 26, 2024, and (2) any replies must be filed by Oct. 3, 2024. 5. The Parties shall meet and confer and jointly file redacted public versions of Valve's Reply in Support of Its Daubert Motion and all supporting materials by Oct. 10, 2024, redacting all material that any party or non-party moved to seal. Valve is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital distribution company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hK90Yf at no extra charge.[CC] The Interim Co-Lead Counsel, are: Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David LeRay, Esq. Adam Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 Facsimile: (206) 905-7100 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com - and - A. Owen Glist, Esq. Ankur Kapoor, Esq. Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 6 E. 43rd St., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 350-2700 Facsimile: (212) 350-2701 E-mail: oglist@constantinecannon.com - and - Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq. Tyre L. Tindall, Esq. Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq. Jordanne M. Steiner, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Telephone: (206) 883-2500 Facsimile: (206) 883-2699 E-mail: sjensen@wsgr.com ttindall@wsgr.com korourke@wsgr.com jordanne.miller@wsgr.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com Executive Committee Member Kenneth J. Rubin, Esq. Timothy B. McGranor, Esq. Kara M. Mundy, Esq. Douglas R. Matthews, Esq. Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 464-6400 Facsimile: (614) 719-4796 E-mail: kjrubin@vorys.com tbmcgranor@vorys.com kmmundy@vorys.com drmatthews@vorys.com tnmccormick@vorys.com Attorneys for Defendant Valve Corporation Blake Marks-Dias, Esq. Eric A. Lindberg, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 E-mail: bmarksdias@corrcronin.com elindberg@corrcronin.com - and - Kristen Ward Broz, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2020 K. St. NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 794-1220 Facsimile: (202) 461-3102 E-mail: kbroz@foxrothschild.com - and - Charles B. Casper, Esq. MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP 1735 Market Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone (215) 772-1500 E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com VESTIS CORP: Faces Hollin Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE HOLLIN, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant VESTIS CORPORATION v. VESTIS CORPORATION, KIMBERLY SCOTT, and RICK DILLON, Case No. 1:24-cv-03059-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Vestis common stock between October 2, 2023, and May 1, 2024, inclusive, against Vestis and certain officers and executives of Vestis, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Vestis, based in Roswell, Georgia, was created as the result of its September 2023 spinoff from food service and facilities services provider Aramark, in which Vestis became an independent publicly traded company (the "Spinoff"). Prior to the Spinoff, the company that was to become Vestis operated as the Aramark Uniform Services division of Aramark, providing rental uniforms and workplace supplies, including: uniform delivery; laundering for rental linens, floor mats, and towels; restroom services; and first-aid supplies. Vestis began trading as a public company on October 2, 2023 (the first day of the Class Period) on the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE") under the ticker symbol "VSTS." Vestis continues to provide rental uniforms and workplace supplies in the United States and Canada. Leading up to the Class Period, on Sept. 13, 2023, the soon-to-be Vestis executives held "the very first Vestis Analyst Day." Incoming Vestis Chief Executive Officer Kimberly Scott explained that she had "joined Aramark Uniform Services a couple of years ago with the intent of preparing the business for this exact moment." During the same Analyst Day call, Defendants identified three areas of the business that would support growth, including high quality new customers. Throughout the Analyst Day call, Defendants painted an overwhelmingly positive picture of the state of the business that would become Vestis, claiming to have: data analytics with a focus on its customer base; sales representatives who could cross-sell the existing customer base; and a sales force that was identifying and developing new customers. The truth was revealed to investors before markets opened on May 2, 2024, when Vestis issued a press release reporting its financial results for the second quarter of FY2024 ended March 29, 2024. The Company reported revenue of $705 million, a mere 0.9% year-over-year increase. CEO Scott was quoted in the press release, stating, "Our results in the quarter and our outlook for the year are not in line with expectations," the suit alleges. On this news, the price of Vestis stock plunged 45%—from a closing price of $18.47 per share on May 1, 2024, to a closing price of $10.16 per share on May 2, 2024—wiping out more than $1 billion in shareholder value. The Plaintiff is and has been a continuous shareholder of Vestis common stock at all relevant times. Defendant Vestis Corporation is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Roswell, Georgia. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Herbert W. Mondros, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com hwm@rl-legal.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr. , Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9594 E-mail: adam@webbllc.com franklin@webbllc.com VILLAS OF HOLLY: Mitchell Conditional Certification Bid Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANEEN MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VILLAS OF HOLLY BROOK SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02269-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Bruce entered an order that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court- Supervised Notice to Putative Collective Members is granted. The court conditionally certifies a class of "All current and former hourly patient facing care providers who worked for Villas of Holly Brook Senior Living, LLC, at any time from December 13, 2019, through the Final Disposition of this Matter ('FLSA Collective' or 'FLSA Collective Members')." The court also approves Plaintiff's Notice and Consent Form with the modifications set forth above. Plaintiff proposed a schedule including deadlines in her attached Proposed Order. The court declines to adopt that schedule in this Order. The parties may work out that issue with the magistrate judge. (2) The stay in this case is lifted. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against the Defendant, on Feb. 2, 2023, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Collective Members on Oct. 2, 2023. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in Washington, Illinois, from October 2019 to October 2022. The Defendant is a family-owned company that provides quality care and assisted living space for the elderly. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8LhMI8 at no extra charge.[CC] VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Settlement Class Initially Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA POTVIN, LISA BULTMAN, MICHAEL MCKARRY, DAVID WABAKKEN, MOHAMED HASSAN, CHRISTINA MERRILL, ERIC LEVINE, PATRICK DONAHUE, DEBBI BROWN, CAROL RADICE, TERRENCE BERRY, AMANDA GREEN, DAVID WILDHAGEN, KATY DOYLE, TASHIA CLENDANIEL, HOGAN POPKESS, KORY WHEELER, HARRY O’BOYLE, JOE RAMAGLI, ERIC KOVALIK, CHARLES HILLIER, LABRANDA SHELTON, ADAM MOORE, TINA GROVE, KEECH ARNSTEN, SCOTT CARTER, MIKE SHERROD, CHRISTI JOHNSON, MARY KOELZER AND MARK STEVENS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01537-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Jessica Allen entered an order preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "All present and former U.S. owners and lessees of Settlement Class Vehicles, defined as certain model year 2019-2023 Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport vehicles, distributed by Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. for sale or lease in the United States and Puerto Rico, which are the subject of Recall 97GF and specifically identified by Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN") in Exhibit 5 to the Settlement Agreement." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) all Judges who have presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current employees, officers, directors, agents and representatives of the Defendant, and their family members; (c) any affiliate, parent or subsidiary of Defendant and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; (d) anyone acting as a used car dealer; (e) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle for the purpose of commercial resale; (f) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle with salvaged title and/or any insurance company who acquired a Settlement Class Vehicle as a result of a total loss; (g) any insurer of a Settlement Class Vehicle; (h) issuers of extended vehicle warranties and service contracts; (i) any Settlement Class Member who, prior to the date of the Settlement Agreement, settled with and released Defendant or any Released Parties from any Released Claims; and (j) any Settlement Class Member who files a timely and proper Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Court preliminarily appoints the law firms of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C.; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Goldenberg Schneider, LPA; The Law Offices of Sean K. Collins; and Lemberg Law LLC, collectively, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Dana Potvin, Lisa Bultman, Michael McKarry, David Wabakken, Mohamed Hassan, Christina Merrill, Eric Levine, Patrick Donahue, Debbi Brown, Carol Radice, Terrence Berry, Amanda Green, David Wildhagen, Katy Doyle, Tashia Clendaniel, Hogan Popkess, Kory Wheeler, Harry O’Boyle, Joe Ramagli, Eric Kovalik, Charles Hillier, Labranda Shelton, Adam Moore, Tina Grove, Keech Arnsten, Scott Carter, Mike Sherrod, Christi Johnson, Mary Koelzer, and Mark Stevens, as Settlement Class Representatives. 12. The Court preliminarily appoints JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Claim Administrator (“Claim Administrator”). Settlement Class Members must check the Settlement website regularly for updates and further details regarding this Settlement: Event Deadline Pursuant to Settlement Agreement Plaintiffs to file Motion for Final Nov. 22, 2024 Approval of the Settlement Any submissions by Defendant Dec. 9, 2024 concerning Final Approval of Settlement Final Fairness Hearing Jan. 15, 2025 Claim Submission Deadline Dec. 24, 2024 Volkswagen is a German public multinational conglomerate manufacturer of passenger and commercial vehicles, motorcycles, engines and turbomachinery. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vP1Wkd at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Must Face Unfair Pricing Class Suit, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- Kyler Swaim, writing for wtnh.com, reports that Walmart must face a class-action lawsuit over allegations that it engaged in "deceptive and unfair pricing practices" on groceries, a federal appeals court ruled on July 3. The plaintiff, Yoram Kahn, claims the retail giant has taken advantage of consumers with small price discrepancies that "add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year." "Kahn alleges that Walmart is aware of these discrepancies between shelf prices and register prices and that its unfair and deceptive pricing practices are pervasive and continuous," the lawsuit states. Kahn said he shopped at a Walmart in Niles, Illinois, on August 2, 2022. Relying on the marked prices on the shelves, he decided what to purchase. Once he went to check out, Kahn scanned 15 items and later learned the price of six of the 15 items scanned had 10 to 15 percent markups above the shelf prices, the lawsuit claims. "In total, Kahn paid Walmart $1.89 in overcharges on these six items, nearly seven percent of the pretax total of his bill," the lawsuit states. "Small change for Kahn as an individual, no doubt, but keep in mind the volume of Walmart's business." A Walmart spokesperson provided the following statement to Nexstar's KNWA: "We'll always work to provide our customers everyday low prices they can count on. We are confident in the evidence and look forward to arguing our case." This case was previously dismissed in March 2023 after a judge ruled that Walmart providing a receipt after purchase negated unfairness caused by the inaccuracies in shelf prices. However, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago recently reversed the lower court judge's ruling and said customers could try to prove Walmart has used a "bait-and-switch" method that violates Illinois' consumer protection laws. This isn't the first time Walmart has faced legal problems regarding its prices. In June, Walmart agreed to pay $1.64 million to settle claims by regulations in New Jersey for inconsistent unit pricing, according to a news release from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin. The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs said in a consent decree that the department's investigation showed the 64 stores in the state violated unit pricing regulations by failing to use a standard unit of measurement -- such as quart, pound, or per 100 sheets -- on groceries and other items. Earlier this year, Walmart announced its plans to install digital shelf labels in nearly 2,300 by 2026. The new addition will allow employees to update prices through a mobile app and eliminate the need to change paper tags by hand, the company said. [GN] WEBHELP AMERICAS: Margolis Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sam Margolis, an Arizona resident; and Shawn Soward, an Arizona resident; v. Webhelp Americas, LLC, an Arizona company; and Concentrix CVG Corporation d/b/a Concentrix + Webhelp, an Arizona company; Case No. 2:24-cv-01615-JZB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All hourly employees; who work[ed] for Defendants Webhelp Americas, LLC and/or Concentrix within the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present employee; who worked off-the-clock hours; who did not receive overtime compensation for those hours"; (2) Authorizing the Opt-In procedure; and (3) For any such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime wages for themselves and the Collective Members, requiring the proper payment of overtime wages to employees. The Plaintiff Margolis was a non-exempt full-time employee who worked for the Defendants from Oct. 4, 2021, until May 2, 2023. The Plaintiff Soward was a non-exempt full-time employee who worked for the Defendants from November 2021 until May 2023. Webhelp is a customer service outsourcing company, specializing in providing support solutions for various industries. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wzligM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Weiler, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com WEIGEL STORES: Hoyt Seeks to Recover Unpaid Non-OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HOYT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEIGEL STORES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00299 (E.D. Tenn., July 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid non-overtime (i.e. "straight-time") wages for uncompensated hours worked, in breach of Defendant's contractual obligation to pay hourly-paid, non-exempt workers for all hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay hourly-paid, non-exempt workers for all hours worked, including, but not limited to, cleaning, picking up trash outside the store, and assisting customers in line at checkout at the beginning of their workdays before clocking-in at the start of their scheduled shifts, driving from one store to another store to assist stores with insufficient staffing, and for work performed after hourly-paid, non-exempt workers' clocked-out at the end of their shift. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative collective were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid, non-exempt workers, and were responsible for providing customer service, cleaning, stocking merchandise, running the cash register, handling safe drops, completing paperwork, receiving merchandise, scanning orders, creating maintenance tickets, completing lottery counts, processing deliveries, opening and closing Defendant's stores, and traveling between stores to assist Defendant's work-demands. The Defendant provides and operates gas station convenience stores throughout the state of Tennessee, providing fuel, beverages, snacks, and foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luke Widener, Esq. Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC First Horizon Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (856) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: lwidener@milberg.com rmcmillan@milberg.com - and - Edmund C. Celeisius, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 1400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Pay $1-Bil. to Resolve Stockholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shanaya, writing for McGill Baptist, reports that San Francisco-based Wells Fargo paid $1 billion to resolve a class action lawsuit in 2024. The Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund and Handelsbanken Fonder AB were among the stockholders who filed this action, which focused on management practices in the context of previous scandals. These problems, such illegal insurance practices and unauthorized accounts, have impacted Wells Fargo's regulatory path. In this article we will provide complete details related to the Wells Fargo Bank Settlement 2024, including its overview, its impact, auto loan customers, action lawsuit payment date, and process to claim. Wells Fargo Bank Settlement 2024 Wells Fargo was accused in the June 2020 lawsuit of failing to improve risk control and compliance as per the agreement. Scandals like unauthorized account openings and improper insurance charges on auto loans caused heavy fines. Wells Fargo was due to an extra $250 million fine in 2021 as a result of its violations in order with a previous deal. Former employees also alleged misuse of funds from the bank's 401(k) plan, displaying governance issues. Rebuilding trust and regulatory compliance has been negatively affected by Wells Fargo's weak improvements and failure to keep up with Federal Reserve requirements, according to a 2020 House Financial Services Committee research. Wells Fargo Class Action Settlement -- A significant part of the American population has been impacted by the Wells Fargo Bank Settlement of 2024, as one out of every three houses maintains bank accounts. -- Numerous people with Wells Fargo accounts have suffered difficulties as a result of the bank's unethical business practices. -- Over 16 million accounts at Wells Fargo have been affected by illegal activity. -- Affected individuals should remain alert and informed about possible refunds and ongoing issues. -- It's critical that people who have Wells Fargo accounts understand their rights and what they may do in response to the settlement. Auto Loan Customers -- A number of customers with vehicle loans had incorrect loan payments. -- These mistakes led to higher interest rates, late fees, and unwarranted car seizure. -- Customers who purchased GAP insurance were unfairly billed for early loan repayment. -- In total, about 11 million accounts were impacted by the problem and a total of almost $1.3 billion is due as a result of these imbalances. Class Action Lawsuit Payment Dates 2024 -- In 2024, Wells Fargo will have to pay up a significant settlement of around $3.7 billion related to the 2016 fake account scandal as a result of class-action lawsuits. -- These settlements deal with serious complaints against the bank, focusing on alleged misconduct and fraud. -- Those impacted by an alleged $300 million Ponzi scheme that included Wells Fargo between 2011 and 2021 anticipate receiving payment as early as this year. -- According to the plaintiffs, the plan included Marshal Seeman, Eric Holtz, and Brian Schwartz, who allegedly used Wells Fargo as their primary bank. How to claim Wells Fargo Class Action Settlement? Here are the steps, victim can follow to claim compensation from Wells Fargo: Step 1: Check if Wells Fargo has contacted you about compensation and if not, proceed to the next step. Step 2: Now call Wells Fargo at 844-484-5089 if you think you are eligible for compensation and have heard from them. Step 3: Be careful of unannounced offers declaring compensation; they could be scams targeting Wells Fargo customers. Step 4: File a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) if Wells Fargo is unable to address your concern. Step 5: The amount paid is determined by the problem; for example, victims of unjustified car seizure may be eligible for at least $4,000 in compensation for related expenses. Step 6: Ensure all communication about compensation is legitimate and use official portal from Wells Fargo or the CFPB for verification. FAQs What is the Wells Fargo Bank Settlement 2024 about? The 2024 settlement resolves allegations of unauthorized account openings, improper fees, and other violations by Wells Fargo, providing compensation to affected customers. How will affected customers receive compensation? Eligible customers will be notified by mail or email with instructions on filing a claim for compensation, which may include direct payments, account credits, or other remedies. What steps is Wells Fargo taking to prevent future issues? Wells Fargo is enhancing internal controls, improving oversight, conducting regular audits, and implementing stricter compliance protocols to prevent future misconduct. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Rice, Westervelt Sue Over EFTA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Alex Richardson, writing for The Daily Hodl, reports that Wells Fargo is facing a new proposed class-action lawsuit, accused of breaking the law by forcing customers to accept responsibility for unauthorized transfers. The suit, filed by Jennifer Rice and Erik Westervelt in a Pennsylvania federal court, alleges Wells Fargo routinely violates the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by not reimbursing victims for their losses. In December of 2023, the couple says they received a call from someone claiming to be from Wells Fargo who informed him that they had detected a fraudulent wire transfer on his account to the tune of $24,557.89. The person on the phone said they could halt the transfer as long as he could confirm the six digit code sent to him via text message. When Westervelt confirmed to code, the $24,557.89 vanished from the joint account via wire transfer to an unknown user at Discover Bank. After realizing he had been speaking with a con artist, Westervelt immediately went to the local Wells Fargo branch to report what happened. The bank's fraud department confirmed that the money had left his account and that they would be investigating the incident. But after days, Wells Fargo called Westervelt and Rice to inform them they would not be reimbursed because they were the ones that "authorized" the transfer. The pair say they did nothing of the sort and claim Wells Fargo went back and forth multiple times between promising to reimburse and then reversing its stance. The plaintiffs reference the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, which states, "A consumer is not liable for any unauthorized electronic fund transfer unless such transfer was made using an accepted card for the account and the issuing institution has provided a means to identify the person using said accepted card." Westervelt and Rice and seeking statutory damages of $1,000 per class member, plus fees, costs and a jury trial. [GN] WORKFORCE 7: Non-Expert Discovery in Ballast Due Oct. 9 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order: 1. The terms of the April 12, 2024 Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order shall continue in full force and effect except for the following modifications: a. Non-expert discovery, except with respect to Count 10, shall be completed by October 9, 2024; b. To the extent that Defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.'s June 21, 2024 Motion to Dismiss is denied, non-expert discovery with respect to Count 10 shall be completed by such date that is 90 days from the date of a decision on Con Edison's Motion; c. Plaintiffs shall take the first step in class certification motion practice by such date that is 45 days from the date of a decision on Con Edison's Motion; d. Expert reports regarding claims other than Count 10 shall be served no later than December 23, 2024; e. Rebuttal expert reports regarding claims other than Count 10 shall be served no later than January 22, 2025; f. Expert witness depositions regarding claims other than Count 10 shall be completed by no later than March 7, 2025; g. To the extent that Con Edison’s Motion is denied, expert reports regarding Count 10 shall be served no later than such date that is 75 days from the date of a decision on Con Edison's Motion; h. To the extent that Con Edison’s Motion is denied, rebuttal expert reports regarding Count 10 shall be served no later than such date that is 30 days from the deadline to serve expert reports; i. To the extent that Con Edison’s Motion is denied, expert witness depositions regarding Count 10 shall be completed no later than such date that is 90 days from the deadline to serve rebuttal expert reports; j. All discovery shall be completed by: such date that is 90 days from the date of a decision on Plaintiffs’ class certification motion WorkForce 7 specializes in industries that need flaggers and securing parking for construction companies and the utility industries. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IqmpLg at no extra charge.[CC] WYNDHAM VACATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Refer Confidential Docs ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER, ELIZABETH LEE KIRCHNER, and ROBERT GRANT WESTON, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00436-RGA-LDH (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an unopposed motion to refer to certain confidential documents at July 22, 2024 class certification hearing. The Plaintiffs move, without objection from the Defendant, for leave to refer to confidential information at the class certification hearing that is contained in documents produced by Defendant with Bates numbers WVR 5418096, WVR 541807, and WVR 359022. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby notify the Court and Defendant of their intention to present Confidential Information from documents produced by Defendant with Bates numbers WVR 5418096, WVR 541807, and WVR 359022 at the July 22, 2024 class certification hearing or any continuance thereof. The Plaintiffs maintain that these documents set forth material omissions which the Defendant failed to convey to class members. The Defendant's failure to disclose the information in these documents is a common omission which affected all class members. The Plaintiffs advised the Defendant of their intent to use these documents. The Defense counsel responded by email on July 2, 2024 stating: Provided the Plaintiffs will state on the record whenever they are referencing confidential documents that were filed in redacted form and will not oppose WVR's application to redact any portions of the hearing transcript where such confidential materials were discussed, we have no objections. Wyndham provides travel services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EAE9d6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Herbert W. Mondros, Esq. RIGROSKY LAW, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com gms@re-legal.com hwm@rl-legal.com - and - Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq. Adam Szulczewski, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ 1014 Ontario Street Oak Park, IL 60302 Telephone: (708) 203-5747 E-mail: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com szulcze@outlook.com X CORP: Court Dismisses Illinois BIPA Putative Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Latham litigators secured a critical win for X Corp. (formerly known as Twitter) in a putative class action in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that X violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with its use of PhotoDNA software to identify and remove images of child exploitation from the X platform. The plaintiff alleged that when he uploaded an image of himself to the X platform, X used PhotoDNA to create a unique digital signature for the image, which is referred to as a "hash." X then compared that hash to hashes for known images of child exploitation so as to stop such images from circulating on X. The plaintiff alleged that this process violated BIPA because PhotoDNA supposedly collects biometric identifiers in the form of facial geometry scans of individuals depicted in images that are analyzed by PhotoDNA. On June 13, 2024, Judge Sunil R. Harjani of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed all claims against X for failure to state a claim under BIPA. Judge Harjani determined that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that PhotoDNA collects facial geometry scans or any other type of biometric identifier, including because the mere fact that PhotoDNA creates hashes from images uploaded to X does not necessarily mean that PhotoDNA also scans the facial geometries of individuals depicted in those images. More significantly, Judge Harjani agreed with X's position that under BIPA, data can qualify as a "biometric identifier" only if it can be used to identify a person. The plaintiff did not allege that PhotoDNA could be used to identify individuals depicted in analyzed images, which provided an independent reason for dismissing all claims against X. The decision affirms that data must be capable of identifying an individual to qualify as a "biometric identifier" and be subject to BIPA's requirements -- a favorable ruling for other companies facing BIPA claims. The Latham team included partners Robert C. Collins III in Chicago and Michele D. Johnson in Orange County, with associate Kathryn Running in Chicago. [GN] [* Asciolla Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in Anti-Trust Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, on Wednesday, July 3, appointed DiCello Levitt Partner Greg Asciolla as End-Payor Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel in an antitrust multidistrict class action lawsuit against some of the largest tire manufacturers in the United States and Europe. DiCello Levitt originally filed one of the class action complaints in this action in February 2024, alleging that the defendants -- the world's leading tire manufacturers, including Continental, Goodyear, Bridgestone, Michelin, and Pirelli -- engaged in a conspiracy to artificially increase the prices of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses. In fact, the complaint alleges that in 2021 and 2022 alone, the average price of tires rose 21.4%, or more than 70% higher than core inflation. The U.S. lawsuit follows a January 2024 investigation by the European Commission, which included unannounced inspections -- also known as "dawn raids" -- on the premises of tire companies suspected of being in breach of EU competition rules. "This unlawful price-fixing scheme harmed tens of thousands of consumers in the United States," said Asciolla, chair of DiCello Levitt's Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice Group and managing partner of the firm's New York office. "The alleged conspiracy to raise prices of replacement tires forced consumers to pay considerably higher prices for their tires -- a purchase vehicle owners usually can't afford to postpone due to imminent safety concerns." Replacement tires are an essential component of vehicle maintenance. With nearly 9.2 million passenger and commercial vehicles being produced and almost 14 million vehicles being sold in the United States in 2022, the U.S. market calls for a considerable number of tires to be manufactured annually. As a result, the U.S. tire industry has an annual footprint of $170.6 billion. The multidistrict litigation is In re Passenger Vehicle Replacement Tires Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:24-md-03107-SL (N.D. Ohio). [GN] [*] Victorian Court OK's Solicitor Common Fund Orders in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Solicitors can now take cut of class action proceeds in Federal Court as well as Victorian Supreme Court What you need to know -- Earlier this year, the Full Federal Court confirmed that it has the power to make common fund orders at the time of settlement. These allow a commission to be paid to a class action funder from the settlement proceeds. -- The Full Federal Court has now confirmed that it has the power to make such orders in favour of solicitors. This allows solicitors to take a percentage of the settlement proceeds (and not just payment for costs and disbursements incurred to conduct the proceeding) (Solicitor CFO). It remains to be seen how the Court's discretion will be exercised, although that is likely to happen shortly. -- This decision could see a shift away from the uptick in class actions commenced in Victoria since July 2020 to obtain the benefit of Group Costs Orders -- and the corresponding decline in class actions filed in other jurisdictions - although such a shift may await a High Court determination on the availability of CFOs generally and Solicitor CFOs. -- While a Solicitor CFO has a similar commercial effect as a contingency fee, they are not the same thing. The key difference is a contingency fee is a contractually agreed fee, while a Solicitor CFO is an order by the Court. Why the debate? The idea of Solicitor CFOs has been controversial. It is essentially like a contingency fee, with law firms taking a cut of settlement proceeds. Contingency fees are permitted for class actions in Victoria through the Group Costs Order regime (introduced in 2020). This saw a flood of claims commenced in the Victorian Supreme Court and a decline in class action filings in other jurisdictions. The ALRC recommended that contingency fees be allowed in class actions. Recent research by the McKell Institute is supportive of replicating the GCO model across all class action regimes for a number of reasons including increased transparency and certainty for plaintiffs, improved returns for group members and promotion of competition between litigation funders and law firms which puts downward pressure on costs. But other jurisdictions maintain the prohibition on contingency fee arrangements. What was this case about? The Court was asked to answer a very specific question about whether it has power, upon the settlement or judgment of a class action, to make a Solicitor CFO. The Court said "yes". -- The question here was about the Court's power -- not the exercise of discretion. Whether a Court will, in any given case, make a Solicitor CFO depends on whether it is "just" in all the circumstances. -- The question was only decided in the context of an order at the time of settlement or judgment. It does not allow a Solicitor CFO to be sought, or granted, early in proceedings (unlike a group costs order). -- The Court rejected the contention that a Solicitor CFO could never be "just" because it creates a conflict of interest. The Court acknowledged that potential or actual conflicts of interest are an inevitable by-product of the class action regime. Those conflicts are managed by the solicitors (assisted by an independent bar) and the interests of group members are protected by the supervision of the Court. -- A Solicitor CFO does not fall foul of the prohibition on contingency fees. An instruction from an applicant to seek a Solicitor CFO is not a contingency fee agreement -- there is no promise to pay any amount. Rather, the Court said "a promise to make an application for an order directing approved remuneration on a particular basis is a quite distinct notion". In other words, any payment of a Solicitor CFO would not be pursuant to any bargain struck as part of the solicitor/client retainer. Rather, the payment would be made pursuant to a Court order from an identifiable settlement fund controlled by the Court. -- Relatedly, the Court rejected the contention that a Solicitor CFO is contrary to a public policy against contingency fees. Apart from public policy considerations going to discretion, and not statutory power, the Court recognised that open class proceedings are the norm and there is a mature and competitive market in which funders and solicitors are in competition for carriage of class actions. By way of analogy, the Court looked at the financial return for group members under the Victorian group costs regime. Returns were better than in funded litigation because the only deduction is the group costs rate (i.e. the solicitor cut) and not separate funding commissions and reimbursement for solicitor fees. We are yet to see the award of a contingency fee in Victoria but this is expected shorty in the G8 Education class action. The Supreme Court of Victoria will hear the application to approve the proposed settlement of $46.5m with a GCO of 27.5% on 26 July 2024. What next? 1. While the Court has confirmed power to make a Solicitor CFO, it has not yet done so. The circumstances in which a Court will find a Solicitor CFO to be "just" are yet to be seen -- although we expect that the focus will more likely be on the amount ordered. 2. We also expect more class actions to be commenced in the Federal Court, potentially seeing a shift back from the Victorian Supreme Court. However, for now, there is still more certainty for plaintiff firms in Victoria, as group costs orders are made early in the proceeding (in contrast to a Solicitor CFO which can only be made at the time of settlement approval) 3. The Federal Court's decision was not surprising given comments made in previous decisions. However, the final word on the availability of CFOs and Solicitor CFOs has not been settled by the High Court -- we expect the High Court will weigh in on this area if presented with the opportunity to do so. 4. Given that a number of the respondents argued against the power of the Court to make a Solicitor CFO (or any CFO), it is possible that special leave to appeal to the High Court may be sought in these proceedings. 5. Similarly, State Supreme Courts may be called upon to determine their respective positions on the availability of Solicitor CFOs. We have seen a divergence between the Federal Court and the NSW Supreme Court on a number of issues (for example, the ability to make pre-mediation class closure orders). However, the Federal Court's clear position is likely to make it more attractive for plaintiff firms than State Supreme Courts (other than Victoria, which allows contingency fees). 6. While contingency fees and Solicitor CFOs necessarily remove litigation funders from the forefront of claims, funders are likely to continue to play a significant role in class actions in Australia. We expect funded claims to continue, and even where firms act on a contingency or Solicitor CFO basis there will likely be some form of funding or loan arrangements at a practice or firm level. [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 ***