/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240729.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 29, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 151 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action For $6.9-Mil. 259 FISH POND: Cheli Sues Over Architectural Barriers to Disabled 301 WYCKOFF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amme Suit Claims AFFINITY BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Merger With Atlanta Postal AIR CANADA: Judgment in Maintenance Centers Closure Suit Reviewed ALASKA: Ott Suit Removed to D. Alaska AMERICAN HERITAGE: Ephraim Seeks Damages for FLSA Breaches ANN & ROBERT: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Patients Info ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ennis Files Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violation ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Siebels Says ASSOCIATES ASSET: Faces Folk Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations AT&T INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Olivieri Says AT&T INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Schulte Says AUCTION TECHNOLOGY: Underpays Sales Representatives, Kling Alleges AUTHENTIC SPORT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Alleges AUYANTEPUY INVESTMENTS: Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges BALENCIAGA AMERICA: Hussein Hits Blind-Inaccessible Website BETTERHELP INC: Court Narrows Claims in CM Suit BOGLE VINEYARDS: Arellano Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BOGLE VINEYARDS: Villa Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BRADY MARTZ: Class Cert Scheduling Plan Entered in Quaife Lawsuit BRE ENTERPRISES: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges CAE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors CAPITAL ONE: Class Counsel Awarded $5.4MM Attorneys' Fees CARGILL INC: Aaron Suit Removed to E.D. California CARGILL INC: Karimi Suit Removed to S.D. California CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Geysimonyan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Bledsoe Says CENCORA INC: Tasangarinos Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Restaurants Sue Over Effects of Power Outages CERTEGY PAYMENT: Discovery in Stachewicz Due Oct. 8 CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Therapy My Way Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHANGE HEALTHCARE: VIP Physicians Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHARLES RIVER: District Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Suit CHICK-FIL-A INC: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. New York CHRYSLER LLC: RAM Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval CHUY'S HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Darden CLEAN CONTROL: Robertson Sues Over Disinfectants' False Ads COINBASE INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss UST Class Action CONTEMPORARY SERVICES: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices COSTCO WHOLESALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Frost Suit Alleges DAPPER LABS: Court Approves NBA Top Shot Class Action Settlement DCOMM INC: Faces Bussey Wage and Hour Suit in Texas DELSEA 205 LTD: Cheli Files Suit Over Disability Discrimination DOMA HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Title Resources DTC ENERGY: Rodriguez Seeks Safety Supervisors' Unpaid OT Wages EAST SIDE PIZZA: Essa Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ELITE TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Faces Variable Annuities Class Action Lawsuit FANTASIA TRADING: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FAT BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 6 FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Website Not Blind-Accessible, Trippett Says FIVE BELOW: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Laws Violations FRANTIC INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Delacruz Alleges FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Sievertsen Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA FROST BANK: Clarke Suit Alleges Illegal Debt Collection GARRETT WADE: Figueroa Hits Unwanted Text Message Solicitations GEISINGER HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Albright Says GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Noncompete Agreements Class Action HEALTHCARE INC: Seeks Arbitration/Judgment in Contract Class Suit HORIZON HOBBY: Figueroa Sues Over Text Message Solicitations HUMAN POWER: Johnson Suit Hits Unsolicited Text Messages INNOVAGE HOLDING: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to August 2 INSPIRE BRANDS: Taferner Sues Over Illegal Dine-In Fee Charges INSTITUTE FOR PLASTIC: Leman Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Battery ISLAND SWIMMING: Agnone Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website JAGUAR LAND: Settles Faulty Infotainment Systems Class Suit JUNO VILLAGE: Feltzin Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers KAILAS INTERNATIONAL: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KNOWMORE LEGAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Compensation Scheme LAKESHORE LEARNING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Agostini Says LENNAR CORP: Faces New Class Action Suit Over Robocalls LIT HOTELS: Faces Bodie Suit Over Disability Discrimination LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Wurm Alleges Unwanted Text Message Solicitations LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gyani Sues Over 'Greenwashing' Campaign LVNV FUNDING: Hertz Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices LYNDON SOUTHERN: Bellaire Multifamily Alleges Breach of Contract MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Triangle T v. BoA Gets Initial OK MILWAUKEE, WI: MPS Recall Group May File Suit for Unfair Activities MONGODB INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 16 NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces Lewis Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Calderon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA NISSAN CANADA: Court Approves $1.82-Mil. Data Hack Class Settlement NORDIC NATURALS: Clark Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents Opt Out of Class Action Settlement ONE FRANKLINE: Cheli Sues Over Architectural Barriers to Disabled PAYONEER INC: Fails to Safeguard Users' Accounts, Alliaud Alleges PENNYMAC LOAN: Cyrus Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices PRIMARY KIDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says PROGRESSIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA PROVIDENCE, RI: Reaches Settlement in 360 High School Closure Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Smith Sues Over Failure to Protect Data PRUITT HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over 2023 Ransomware Attack PRUITTHEALTH INC: Clayton Sues Over Data Security Failures READY PLAYER ME: Crawley Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois READY PLAYER ME: Planos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois RICOR ENTERPRISES: Faces Brito Suit Over Alleged ADA Violations ROBINHOOD MARKETS: $9-Mil. Referral Class Settlement Gets Approval ROMAN HEALTH: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California SAFE AUTO TRUCKING: Hsieh Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois SEASTAR MEDICAL: Wells Sues Over 4.84% Share Price Drop SENDWELL INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Champion Due Jan. 20, 2025 SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Turner Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to W.D. Wash. SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Teel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIERRA PACIFIC HOME: Miguel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SISTERS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bitz Suit Alleges SNOWFLAKE INC: Armstrong Files Suit in D. Montana SNOWFLAKE INC: Giangiulio Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info SNOWFLAKE INC: Wilkinson Files Suit in D. Montana SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Rathbun Files Suit in S.D. Georgia SP PLUS CORPORATION: Zajac Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Schultz Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. STADIUM ENTERPRISES: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STITCH FIX: Court Junks RWDSU Suit STITCH INDUSTRIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says STORM-TEK INC: Cantu Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages STUDIO STYL II: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SWAP.COM INC: Faces Wurm Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls SWEET RAINBOW: Zhunio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TARGET CORPORATION: Panelli Suit Transferred to S.D. California TC HEARTLAND: Court Narrows Claims in Splenda Class Action TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Waits Class Suit Over 23.6% Stock Price Drop TEMUAPP.ME: Faces New Class Action Over Illegal Telemarketing TERADATA CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 13 TESLA INC: Changes Legal Teams for Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit TEXAS DISPOSAL: Schneeberger Sues to Recover Overtime Wages TIMBERLINE RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Mcewen Mining TJX COMPANIES: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says TURING VIDEO INC: Trio Suit Transferred to D. Idaho UNITED 1 PROTECTION: Bush Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED AIRLINES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Sambrano to 5th Cir. UNITED COAL COMPANY: Wolford Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages UNITED STATES: Jordan Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims UNIVERSITY CREDIT UNION: Ortiz Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Stewart Files Suit in N.D. Texas UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Court Starts Hearing WARN Class-Action USC: B Doe Jewish Files Suit in C.D. Cal. VARSITY BRANDS: $82.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod VAXART INC: Class Cert. Bid in Himmelberg Modified to July 30 VICTORIA: Towers Demolition to Go Ahead Despite Class Action VISA INC: Extends Antitrust Class Action Claim Filing to August 30 WALMART INC: Settlement Deal in Arrison Suit Gets Final Nod WARNER BROS: Ferguson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WEILL CORNELL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Paduch Class Action WEST VIRGINIA: Plaintiffs Appeal Corrections Class Suit Dismissal WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Seeks to Dismiss Esquivel Retirement Suit WORLD TRAVEL: Class Settlement in Preston Lawsuit Gets Initial Nod YOUNG LIVING: Bid to Seal Class Cert Supplemental Memo Granted YOUNG LIVING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response YUBA CITY HOTEL: Munger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZUCKERMAN FAMILY FARMS: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. [*] Fraud Rising in Claims-Made Class Action Settlements [*] Silverthorne, CO to Join Forever Chemicals Class Action Suit [*] Slater Vecchio Probes Potential Suit Over Plant-Based Milk ********* 23ANDME INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action For $6.9-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve Adler, writing for The HIPAA Journal, reports that 23andMe has reached an agreement in principle to settle a class action lawsuit that was filed in response to a breach of customer data in 2023. The breach occurred in October 2023 and resulted in the theft of the data of approximately 6.9 million individuals, around half of its customers. There was no breach of 23andMe's systems, instead a threat actor conducted a credential stuffing attack, which allowed access to be gained to certain customer accounts. Around 14,000 individual accounts were compromised, around 0.1% of its customers. When the breach was discovered, 23andMe placed the blame for the attack on customers' poor security practices. The accounts could only be accessed as the affected customers had used the same username/password combinations that had been used to secure accounts on unrelated platforms. When those third-party platforms experienced data breaches and credentials were stolen, they could be used to access any other account where the credentials had been used, which in this case was 23andMe. Data obtained from those accounts included uninterrupted raw genotype data, health predisposition reports, and carrier-status reports. The threat actor also exploited a 23andMe feature -- DNA Relatives -- which allows people to connect with their DNA relatives. Through that feature, the threat actor accessed the profile information of around 5.5 million 23andMe users as well as the Family Tree information of a further 1.4 million individuals. The threat actor then listed datasets for sale, including customers with Jewish and Chinese heritage. More than 2 dozen lawsuits were filed against 23andMe over the data breach. The plaintiffs' attorneys claimed that the datasets being offered for sale could be used as a hit list, allowing Jews to be targeted, and the Chinese dataset could be used by the intelligence agencies of the People's Republic of China to target dissidents. While the 14,000 accounts were accessed due to customers' password reuse, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that 23andMe should have done more to protect users' sensitive data. They alleged that 23andMe should have been aware that a cyberattack was likely, and should have taken steps to reduce risk, and should have had proper data breach protocols in place. Further, the company should have notified customers with Jewish and Chinese heritage that the datasets had been made available and that they could potentially be targeted. The lawsuits also alleged that 23andme lied about data security and had failed to implement protections in accordance with industry standards, then lied about the scope and severity of the breach. At a court hearing, attorneys for the San Francisco-based company disclosed that a settlement had been agreed in principle to bring the litigation to an end. The company is finalizing the details and hopes to produce an executive term sheet in the next week and will then draft a full settlement agreement. "We have reached an agreement in principle for a full settlement of U.S. claims regarding the 2023 ‘credential stuffing' security incident," said 23andMe, in a statement provided to the San Francisco Business Times. "We believe this settlement is in the best interest of 23andMe customers, and we look forward to finalizing the agreement." Lawyers for the plaintiffs and class argued that under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, some of the class were owed up to $3 billion in damages. In its annual report, 23andMe disclosed that the company has around $216 million in cash, so any continued legal action to obtain substantial damages risked 23andMe filing for bankruptcy. The terms of the settlement have not yet been disclosed, but the settlement is likely to involve payment for dark web monitoring services and non-monetary relief. A hearing has been scheduled for July 30 for the court to be provided with an update on the term sheet and a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is expected to be filed within a couple of months. [GN] 259 FISH POND: Cheli Sues Over Architectural Barriers to Disabled ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual v. 259 FISH POND ROAD, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-07860 (D.N.J., July 18, 2024) is a class action seeking from the 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 occasion over the years -- her last visit as a patron of the plaza occurred on May 9, 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. She has personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered her safety at the Property. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, as prohibited by the ADA, the suit asserts. Ms. Cheli, is an individual with disabilities -- as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. Ms. Cheli has been diagnosed with facioscapulohumeral musculadystrophy and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of her major life activities including not being able to walk, stand, reach, or lift. 259 Fish owns and/or operates a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com 301 WYCKOFF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amme Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Mohamed Cheikh Amme, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Ahmed Alsayedi, Ali F. Hafeed, Nashwan Fittahey, 301 Wyckoff Realty LLC, 66 Mini Market Corp., Wyckoff Organic Mini Market I Corp., and Wyckoff Organic Mini Market Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05077 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention. Plaintiff Cheikh Amme was employed as a general worker at Defendants' bodegas located in Brooklyn, NY. From approximately April 2023 to, through and including, December 2023, the Plaintiff worked for a total period of approximately 84 hours during each of the weeks but Plaintiff was only paid a flat salary of $1,000 per week. Moreover, the Plaintiff was not paid at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The 301 Wyckoff Realty LLC is a domestic limited liability company headquartered in Brooklyn, NY. [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, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com AFFINITY BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Merger With Atlanta Postal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC, (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating Affinity Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: AFBI), relating to its proposed merger with Atlanta Postal Credit Union ("APCU"). Under the terms of the agreement, APCU will pay Affinity an aggregate amount estimated to provide Affinity with sufficient cash to pay Affinity shareholders $22.50 per share, subject to potential increase for levels of tax payments. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/affinity-bancshares-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] AIR CANADA: Judgment in Maintenance Centers Closure Suit Reviewed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Air Canada is staring at a payout of more than $70 million in relation to a lawsuit filed by former workers. The carrier has been accused of violating federal law by closing its maintenance centers in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga about a decade ago due to the collapse of Aveos, its former maintenance contractor. $73 million payout A class-action lawsuit against Air Canada could force it to pay at least CA $100 million ($73.2 million) to more than 2,000 former workers. The decision was released by Judge Marie-Christine Hivon, who first ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in November 2022. The amount is expected to compensate the workers for the loss of livelihood, benefits as well as moral damages when Air Canada's former maintenance contractor, Aveos, collapsed about a decade ago. Air Canada, however, is reviewing the judgment and is not ready to commit to a figure just yet. Bloomberg quotes Air Canada spokesperson Christophe Hennebelle as saying, "We have appealed the first part of the judgment on the principle of liability. We are considering whether to add points to the second judgment, which will not apply anyway if our appeal in the first part is successful. "The judgment merely sets out a calculation method and then calls for individual proof for each member. It is completely silent on the quantification of the total amount. Any assessment at this stage is therefore pure speculation." Federal law violation The case dates back to a decade when Air Canada shut its maintenance centers in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga during the collapse of Aveos. In 2022, Judge Marie-Christine Hivon said that the carrier "did not take reasonably serious steps to comply with the law after the closure of Aveos." She added that Air Canada should compensate the workers for "stress, questioning, decrease in self-esteem, insecurity, feelings of injustice and loss of enjoyment in life" and for moral damages, including psychological problems. However, the judge dismissed the claim of $110 million in punitive damages back then, saying that it was not evident that Air Canada's bad faith or willful misconduct caused Aveos' collapse. It remains to be seen how this plays out in the coming months. Air Canada in fleet expansion mode As far as its operations are concerned, Air Canada is going ahead with a fleet expansion program and is getting ready to welcome eight brand-new Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft following a successful contract agreement with lessor BOC Aviation. The carrier has more than 250 planes in its fleet -- a mixture of Boeing and Airbus jets -- and another 90 aircraft on order. These also include 27 A220-300s, 30 A321XLRs, and 18 787-10 Dreamliners. Air Canada is also celebrating the 40th anniversary of its Aeroplan loyalty program and is giving away 1 million points each to 40 lucky frequent fliers. The carrier's other offerings included ten days of exclusive deals and other prizes for millions of Aeroplan members. Air Canada had a special landing page for registration for the prize, and applicants were given until July 17 to complete the form. [GN] ALASKA: Ott Suit Removed to D. Alaska ------------------------------------- The case styled as Sierra Ott, on behalf of L.O., and others similarly situated v. State of Alaska, Department of Health, Heidi Hedberg, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department, Division of Public Assistance, Deb Etheridge, in her official capacity as Director of the Division, Case No. 3AN-24-06861 CI was removed from the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on July 15, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00153-HRH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. State of Alaska, Department of Health will have oversight of health care services, payment and public health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Davis, Jr., Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G Street, Ste. 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 308-3395 Email: jdavis@njp-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Katherine E. Demarest, Esq. Margaret A. Paton-Walsh, Esq. Attorney General's Office (Anch) 1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 269-5100 Fax: (907) 465-2417 Email: kate.demarest@alaska.gov margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov AMERICAN HERITAGE: Ephraim Seeks Damages for FLSA Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------- SHAUNDA EPHRAIM, On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HERITAGE PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05620 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. From approximately September 27, 2023 to May 23, 2024, the Plaintiff was employed with Defendant as a security officer in Michigan. Allegedly, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required by Defendant to perform unpaid work before and after their shifts each day. This unpaid work was performed for Defendant's benefit. However, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, says the suit. American Heritage Protective Services, Inc. is a company that provides security and site protection services to clients/customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com ANN & ROBERT: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Patients Info -------------------------------------------------------------- C.C. and C.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated by their guardian, YOLANDA BERRY v. ANN & ROBERT H. LURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF CHICAGO, Case No. 1:24-cv-06086 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2024) is a class action arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach that occurred between Jan. 26, 2024, and Jan. 31, 2024, which affected Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and/or network, and which did result in the unauthorized access to approximately 791,784 individuals' personally identifiable information and personal health information. On Jan. 31, 2024, the Defendant detected unauthorized activity within its computer systems and/or network. While the Defendant claimed to have discovered the breach in January 2024, it did not notify victims of the breach until five months later, in June 2024, when it confirmed that cybercriminals had accessed its systems and the personal information of its patients, and began to mail breach notification letters to victims, including Plaintiffs, the suit says. Presently, the Defendant has offered no assurance to the Plaintiffs and Class members that the sensitive and private information that was accessed in the Data Breach has been recovered or destroyed, the suit adds. The information compromised in the Data Breach was disclosed by the Defendant to be minor patients' names, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, dates of service, driver's license numbers, health claims information, health plan information, medical condition or diagnosis, medical record number, medical treatment information, prescription information, Social Security numbers and telephone numbers. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class members are now at a substantially increased risk of experiencing misuse of their PII/PHI in the coming years. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Class members whose PII/PHI was exposed in the Data Breach, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of Illinois state consumer protection laws and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. The Plaintiffs C.C. and C.C. are minors residing in Illinois. The Defendant is a children's hospital and pediatric research center.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com mnp@chimicles.com ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ennis Files Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Sandre Ennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asbury Automotive North Carolina Dealership Holdings L.L.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00377-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C., June 14, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act under Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. Asbury Automotive Group is a company based in Atlanta, Georgia that operates auto dealerships in various parts of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Siebels Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDAN SIEBELS, individually, and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03130-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 16, 2024) is an action arising out of the Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of the confidential personal information, personally identifying information of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members via a December 2023 cyber-attack on its information systems and the Defendant's failure to reasonably mitigate against the foreseeability of such an attack. The Plaintiff contends that because of Defendant's failures to implement reasonable, industry standard cybersecurity safeguards, the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Members have and will continue to suffer harm. Furthermore, because of the Defendant's failures, the sensitive PII of Plaintiff and the proposed class of current and former employees, and likely including candidate employees were disclosed to a notorious cyber and identity theft gang, including the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and social security numbers. Although Defendant discovered the Data Breach on Dec. 25, 2023, the Defendant failed to notify and warn Data Breach victims of the unauthorized disclosure of their PII until April 22, 2024. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failures to protect the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' sensitive PII and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating the Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis. Plaintiff Siebels, a former employee of Defendant, received a data breach notification letter from Defendant on April 22, 2024. The Defendant offers new and used vehicles for sale, replacement parts, financing options, vehicle maintenance, and collision repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Alons, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 207 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4479 E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com ASSOCIATES ASSET: Faces Folk Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- MEACO FOLK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATES ASSET RECOVERY, LLC and TAMMY REASON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03018-AT (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Folk was employed by the Defendants as a tow truck driver from approximately June 2023 through May 15, 2024. He alleges that AAR violated the FLSA by routinely truncating records of employees' work hours and failing to properly pay proper wages. Associates Asset Recovery, LLC is a transportation and warehousing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC 101 Marietta Street Suite 2650 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Facsimile: (404) 979-3170 E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com AT&T INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Olivieri Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD OLIVIERI and LAUREN WOON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AT&T, INC., AT&T MOBILITY LLC, SNOWFLAKE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00056-JTJ (D. Mont., July 15, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' personal information, particularly personally identifiable information. On July 12, 2024, AT&T announced that records of calls and texts of "nearly all" its wireless customers and customers of mobile virtual network operators ("MVNO") had been illegally downloaded from its workspace on a third-party cloud platform between April 14 and April 25, 2024, in a massive security breach. The stolen data contains phone numbers of both cellular and landline customers of around 110 million AT&T customers, as well as AT&T records of calls and text messages — such as who contacted who by phone or text — during a six-month period between May 1, 2022 and October 31, 2022. Some of the stolen data also includes customer records from January 2, 2023, the suit says. The Plaintiffs and Class Members assert they have suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct. These injuries include diminution in value and/or lost value of Personal Information; out-of-pocket expenses associated with preventing, detecting, and remediating identity theft, social engineering, and other unauthorized use of their Personal Information; continued, long term, and certain increased risk that unauthorized persons will access and abuse the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Personal Information; and invasion of privacy and increased risk of fraud and identity theft. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their Personal Information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Mr. Olivieri owned or has owned two AT&T cell phones and has been an AT&T customer since his Cingular Wireless accounts were converted to AT&T in 2008. The Plaintiff Woon has been an AT&T customer since at least 2007 when Cingular Wireless and AT&T merged and specifically during May to October 2022 and January 2023. AT&T is an American multi-national telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William A. Rossbach, Esq. ROSSBACH LAW, P.C. 401 North Washington Street Missoula, MT 59807-8988 Telephone: (406) 543-5156 E-mail: bill@rossbachlaw.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com.com kswope@cpmlegal.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP TIMOTHY G. BLOOD 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com jmacpherson@bholaw.com AT&T INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Schulte Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris Schulte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC., Case No. 3:24-cv-07818 (D.N.J., July 16, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other similarly situated persons whose personal information was acquired and/or accessed by unauthorized persons in the data breach that AT&T describes through its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 12, 2024 (the "2024 Cellular Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges that AT&T failed to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class stored within AT&T's information network, including, their telephone numbers and the numbers of those with whom they called and texted, the number of times they interacted with those parties and the call duration of their telephonic communications, and in some cases, geolocating information. The 2024 Cellular Data Breach has been estimated to impact nearly all of AT&T's over 241.5 million wireless customers and customers of mobile virtual network operators ("MVNO") who used AT&T's wireless networks between May 1, 2022 and Oct. 31, 2022, plus every person with whom an AT&T customer called or texted during that time period, including customers of other wireless networks, plus certain customers who used AT&T's wireless networks on Jan. 2, 2023, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff, for himself and for others similarly situated current and former customers of AT&T impacted by the 2024 Cellular Data Breach, seek actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and restitution, with attorney fees, costs, and expenses. The Plaintiff also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to AT&T's data security systems and protocols (which have been the subject of multiple recent data breaches), future annual audits, AT&T-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and any other remedies the Court deems necessary and proper. Mr. Schulte is and has been a customer of, and received wireless voice, messaging, and data services from, AT&T. AT&T provides wireless voice, messaging, and data services in the United States, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Serina M. Vash, Esq. John C. Herman, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 153 Central Avenue #131 Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (862) 250-3930 E-mail: svash@hermanjones.com jherman@hermanjones.com AUCTION TECHNOLOGY: Underpays Sales Representatives, Kling Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRENNAN KLING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUCTION TECHNOLOGY GROUP PLC, PROXIBID INC., and LIVE AUCTIONEERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05448 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Inside Sales Representative in New York, New York from approximately September 2018 to August 2023. Auction Technology Group PLC is an operator of on-line platforms for auctions headquartered in London, England. Proxibid Inc. is a subsidiary of Auction Technology Group PLC based in New York, New York. Live Auctioneers LLC is a subsidiary of Auction Technology Group PLC based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Pappas, Esq. MICHAEL P. PAPPAS LAW FIRM, P.C. 3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 770-7890 Facsimile: (646) 417-6688 AUTHENTIC SPORT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Authentic Sport Specialty, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04976 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website "Soccerpost.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 has made an attempt to visit and use Soccerpost.com. He tried to learn more information about the goods and services offered by the company on May 29, 2024, but was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Authentic Sport Specialty provides to their non-disabled customers through their website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Authentic Sport Specialty's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Authentic Sport specializes in soccer products including firm ground cleats, turf shoes, indoor shoes, soccer jerseys, training apparel, soccer equipment and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com AUYANTEPUY INVESTMENTS: Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. AUYANTEPUY INVESTMENTS LLC; and SANPOCHO RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a SANPOCHO RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:24-cv-22748 (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2024) asserts that the Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff and others similarly situated by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located in it and seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property, to include visits to the Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property on about May 22, 2024, and encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have allegedly posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated. He plans to return to the Commercial Property within two (2) months of the filing of this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. Auyantepuy Investments owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property at 901 SW 8th Street, Miami, Florida, 33130.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BALENCIAGA AMERICA: Hussein Hits Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALENCIAGA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05725 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.balenciaga.com/en.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted on April 16, 2024 and again on April 22, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the product she wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. 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. Balenciaga America, Inc. operates as an online apparel store. The Company offers ready-to-wear, shoes, bags, sunglasses, caps, jewelry, and other related accessories for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BETTERHELP INC: Court Narrows Claims in CM Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss consolidated class action complaint. These putative class actions -- now consolidated -- arose following the announcement by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") of an investigation into the business practices of defendant BetterHelp, Inc., which resulted in the entry of a consent decree. BetterHelp operates an online counseling service that matches users with therapists and then facilitates counseling via its websites and apps. BetterHelp offers its service under several names, each of which has its own website and app. The primary website and app, named "BetterHelp," serves general audiences and has been in operation since 2013. In more recent years, BetterHelp has started several additional websites aimed at serving specific groups, such as Christians, couples, teens, and the LGBTQ community. The Consolidated Complaint adopts allegations from the FTC complaint that BetterHelp, "delegated most decision-making authority over its use of Facebook's advertising services to a Junior Marketing Analyst who was a recent college graduate, had never worked in marketing, and had no experience and little training in safeguarding consumers' health information when using that information for advertising. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gkJn80 at no extra charge.[CC] BOGLE VINEYARDS: Arellano Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ FIDEL ARELLANO, ARTURO VILLA, and JUAN VASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, all similarly situated aggrieved employees, and all others similarly situated v. BOGLE VINEYARDS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-at-00911 (E.D. Cal., July 18, 2024) arises out of Defendant's failure to pay non-exempt employees all wages it owed them by failing to pay for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate compensation and failing to provide non-exempt employees with legally compliant meal periods. The Defendant allegedly has refused to pay all wages due and owed to Plaintiffs and Class Members under the express provisions of the California Labor Code, which, in turn, resulted in additional Labor Code violations entitling Plaintiffs and the class to prompt payment of wages and penalties. As a result, Defendant failed to pay non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and the class, all wages owed to them upon discharge (including seasonal layoffs) or resignations in conformance with California law, says the suit. The suit seeks to vindicate the rights afforded to workers under Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, California law, including the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs, for themselves and the class, also seek injunctive relief requiring Defendant to comply with all applicable California labor laws and regulations in the future and preventing Defendant from engaging in and continuing to engage in unlawful and unfair business practices. Plaintiff Arellano was hired by the Defendant to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the San Joaquin Division of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). Bogle Vineyards is a California winery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Cody A. Bolce, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com CBolce@TheMMLawFirm.com BOGLE VINEYARDS: Villa Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- FIDEL ARELLANO, ARTURO VILLA, and JUAN VASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, all similarly situated aggrieved employees, and all others similarly situated v. BOGLE VINEYARDS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01971-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., July 18, 2024) arises out of Defendant's failure to pay non-exempt employees all wages it owed them by failing to pay for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate compensation and failing to provide non-exempt employees with legally compliant meal periods. The Defendant allegedly has refused to pay all wages due and owed to Plaintiffs and Class Members under the express provisions of the California Labor Code, which, in turn, resulted in additional Labor Code violations entitling Plaintiffs and the class to prompt payment of wages and penalties. As a result, Defendant failed to pay non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and the class, all wages owed to them upon discharge (including seasonal layoffs) or resignations in conformance with California law, says the suit. The suit seeks to vindicate the rights afforded to workers under Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, California law, including the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs, for themselves and the class, also seek injunctive relief requiring Defendant to comply with all applicable California labor laws and regulations in the future and preventing Defendant from engaging in and continuing to engage in unlawful and unfair business practices. Plaintiff Arellano was hired by the Defendant to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the San Joaquin Division of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). Bogle Vineyards is a California winery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Cody A. Bolce, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com CBolce@TheMMLawFirm.com BRADY MARTZ: Class Cert Scheduling Plan Entered in Quaife Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quaife v. Brady Martz & Associates, P.C. (re Brady Martz Data Security Litigation), Case No. 3:23-cv-00176-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Alice Senechal entered an order adopting the Parties' scheduling/discovery plan: -- The parties have agreed that all fact April 30, 2025 discovery will be completed by the following deadline, with all discovery pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36 to be served a minimum of 30 days prior to the deadline: -- The parties have agreed on the following Mar. 31, 2025 deadline for discovery motions: -- An appropriate time for a mid-discovery Jan. 15, 2025 status conference would be: -- The Parties have agreed on the following deadlines for exchanging complete class certification expert witness reports and depositions: Jan. 31, 2025 for plaintiff(s); March 10, 2025 for defendant(s); and April 9, 2025 for any rebuttal experts; May 16, 2025 expert class certification deposition deadline. -- The Parties have agreed on the following deadlines for exchanging complete fact expert witness reports and depositions: June 30, 2025 for plaintiff(s); Aug. 14, 2025 for defendant(s); Sept. 15, 2025 for any rebuttal experts; and Oct. 22, 2025 deadline for fact expert discovery/depositions. Brady Martz is a full-service accounting and consulting firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cz5khk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Haider, Esq. SCHNEIDER LAW FIRM 815 3rd Ave. S. Fargo, ND 58103 Telephone: (701) 235-4481 E-mail: scott@schneiderlawfirm.com - and - Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Joe E. Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Suhr, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 90 S. 7th Street, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 428-5000 E-mail: emily.suhr@lweisbrisbois.com BRE ENTERPRISES: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, v. B.R.E. ENTERPRISES, INC.; and FAMAG INC d/b/a CABANAS 2, Case caption, Case No. 1:24-cv-22747 (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit asserts that the Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located in it. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. The barriers to access have allegedly posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated. He plans to return to the Commercial Property within two (2) months of the filing of this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. B.R.E. Enterprises owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses in it, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com CAE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CAE Inc. (NYSE: CAE) securities between February 11, 2022 and May 21, 2024. CAE is a technology company that offers software-based simulation training and critical operations support solutions. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that CAE Inc. (CAE) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants made misrepresentations concerning significant cost overruns in CAE's Defense segment caused by several fixed-price, long-term Defense contracts entered into prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, defendant Branco stated the Company had reduced its "hard costs," drove "added staffing efficiencies," and that CAE was "focus[ed] on internally making us stronger and contributing to margin expansion." The Company also stated that "[n]otwithstanding the ongoing challenges posed by the pandemic, CAE is already delivering stronger financial performance . . . and optimizing its position[.]" Despite this and other positive statements, the complaint alleges that certain of CAE's pre-COVID fixed-price Defense contracts had experienced such significant cost overruns that the Company needed to take over $720 million in charges and profit adjustments and "re-baselin[e]" its entire Defense business. Plaintiff alleges that on May 21, 2024, CAE issued a press release announcing a "re-baselining of its Defense business, Defense impairments, accelerated risk recognition on Legacy Contracts and appointment of Nick Leontidis as COO[.]" The Company stated that "CAE has recorded a $568.0 million non-cash impairment of Defense goodwill," "$90.3 million in unfavorable Defense contract profit adjustments as a result of accelerated risk recognition on the Legacy Contracts," and a "$35.7 million impairment of related technology and other non-financial assets which are principally related to the Legacy Contracts." On this news, the price of CAE stock declined $1.03 per share, or more than 5%, from $19.83 per share on May 21, 2024, to $18.80 per share on May 22, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against CAE Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by September 10, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against CAE Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Class Counsel Awarded $5.4MM Attorneys' Fees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB MCNEIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00473-RER-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramon Reyes, Jr. entered an order granting application for attorneys' fees, costs, and service award: -- The appointment of Bob McNeil as Class Representative is affirmed. -- The appointment of the law firms of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., Kaliel Gold PLLC, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Hausfeld LLP as Class Counsel is affirmed. -- The Court affirms the finding that the Settlement Class meets the relevant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements for Settlement purposes. -- Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,401,090.84 and costs in the amount of $279,665.51, such amounts to be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Agreement's terms. -- The Court concludes that the attorneys' fees awarded to Class Counsel meets the requirements of Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000), in all respects. -- The Class Representative is awarded a Service Award of $5,000.00, such amount to be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Capital offers financial products and services such as personal and business checking, savings accounts, investment, mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and commercial banking solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cqT5Qv at no extra charge.[CC] CARGILL INC: Aaron Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Keenan Aaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CARGILL, INC., a Delaware corporation, doing business as CARGILL ANIMAL NUTRITION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004918 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00843. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Lawful Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Owed Upon Separation From Employment; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Violation of the Unfair Competition Law; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenses; Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for Failure to Make Proper Disclosures; Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for Failure to Obtain Proper Authorization; Failure to Make Proper Disclosure; Failure to Make Proper Disclosure; Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys' General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard H. Rahm, Esq. Ethan Lai, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: richard.rahm@ogletree.com ethan.lai@ogletree.com CARGILL INC: Karimi Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mohammad Karimi, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00024690-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01166-CAB-BLM. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law under its "unfair" prong ("UCL"); unjust enrichment; and conversion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aileen M. Hunter, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Phone: (949) 223 7000 Facsimile: (949) 223 7100 Email: aileen.hunter@bclplaw.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Geysimonyan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cellco Partnership, et al. The case is styled as George Gevork Geysimonyan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cellco Partnership, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV17775 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 17, 2024). Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless -- https://www.verizon.com/ -- is an American wireless network operator that previously operated as a separate division of Verizon Communications under the name Verizon Wireless.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Bledsoe Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA BLEDSOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03158 (E.D. Pa., July 18, 2024) contends that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard individuals' personally identifying information and protected health information including consumers' first names, last names, dates of birth, health diagnoses, medications, and prescriptions. Despite Defendants' duty to safeguard PII and PHI, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information was exposed to unauthorized third parties during a massive data breach following a February 2024 cyberattack. While Cencora initially disclosed the Data Breach in a public filing in February 2024, it revealed very little information. To date, it is still unknown just how many individuals' PII and PHI was implicated as a result of the Data Breach. Additionally, despite becoming aware of unauthorized access to its systems on Feb. 21, 2024, the Defendants did not begin notifying affected individuals until late May 2024, the suit claims. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. To recover from Defendants for these harms, the Plaintiff and the Class seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to: (1) investigate and disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of PII and PHI accessed, obtained, or exposed by the hackers; (2) implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of PII and PHI possessed by Defendants; and (3) provide, at Defendants' own expense, all impacted victims with lifetime identity protection services, the suit further asserts. Ms. Bledsoe is and was a citizen of the State of Missouri. Cencora is a pharmaceutical giant that provides services related to drug distribution, specialty pharmacy, consulting, and clinical trial support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com CENCORA INC: Tasangarinos Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore Tasangarinos, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02960 (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to adequately secure and safeguard his and other similarly situation patient's personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including first and last name, date of birth, health diagnosis, and/or medications and prescriptions, from criminal hackers. On February 27, 2024, Cencora filed an official notice of a hacking incident with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in its Form 8-K. Under state and federal law, organizations must report breaches involving PHI within at least 60 days. On or about May 17, 2024, Cencora also sent out data breach letters (the "Notice") to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice sent to Plaintiff and the "Class Members", unusual activity was detected on some of their computer systems. In response, Defendants launched an investigation. Cencora's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient information and that such access took place on an undisclosed date (the "Data Breach"). Despite this knowledge, Cencora waited nearly three months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for approximately three months that their PII and PHI had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their PII and PHI to Defendant Cencora is a pharmaceutical solutions organization that provides medical products and services to patients and healthcare providers, including but not limited to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Bristol Myers Squibb.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law - and - Edward F. Haber, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Restaurants Sue Over Effects of Power Outages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Abrahams, writing for ABC13, reports that restaurant owners are joining together in a class action lawsuit against CenterPoint Energy, saying the electric company's negligence cost them business and threatened their livelihoods. ABC13 reached out to CenterPoint about the lawsuit. They haven't responded to our request for comment, but the restaurateurs have a lot to say. Ryan Lachaine is the executive chef and partner at Riel Restaurant in Montrose. His business was without power for a full week, which left his 20 employees unable to work. "Restaurants are difficult at the best of times, and when something like this happens, it is absolutely devastating," Lachaine said. "We all knew this was going to happen, something was going to happen. And it's kind of frustrating when we're supposed to be ready all the time, and hunker down or do this or do that, and when it comes time for someone else to do their job, nobody's ready." That's why Lachaine is part of a class action suit in Harris County that claims CenterPoint failed to do its job. His attorney is Tony Buzbee. ABC13 interviewed Buzbee in his home, which got power back last night but then lost it as the interview began. Buzbee says the lawsuit will focus on restaurants that have been in business for over a year and lost power for at least 48 hours. He wants the suit to energize action and change. "CenterPoint doesn't know, they don't know their grid," Buzbee said. "They have clearly not invested in infrastructure to prevent things like this." Robin Wong is another restauranteur who agrees that losing power is devastating. One of his restaurants is Luloo's in Garden Oaks. "Being a city that's as large as Houston is, we can't keep having these problems. It needs to be fixed," Wong said. "[Losing power in these storms] just long enough to lose all the food in your walk-in [is] just enough to where you have to start over." The restaurateurs say they don't want a handout, but they say they can't stick with business as usual any longer without speaking out. "Being a small business owner," Lachaine said. "We're kind of sick of being pushed around." [GN] CERTEGY PAYMENT: Discovery in Stachewicz Due Oct. 8 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stachewicz v. Certegy Payment Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258 (C.D. Ill., Filed July 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge James E. Shadid entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to complete discovery and expert discovery, joint motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification and dispositive motions: -- Discovery due by: Oct. 8, 2024 -- Dispositive Motions due by: Dec. 17, 2024 -- Final Pretrial Conference set for April 18, 2025 March 14, 2025, is vacated and reset to: -- Proposed Pretrial Order due: April 4, 2025 -- Jury Trial set for April 14, 2025 May 19, 2025 is vacated and reset to: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Certegy is a FinTech provider of payment risk management and services to retailers and financial institutions in North America.[CC] CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Therapy My Way Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Therapy My Way, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00345 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02372-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. 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. 225 Jersey St San Francisco, CA 94114 Email: dberger45@gmail.com - and - John Tate Spragens, Esq. SPRAGENS LAW PLC 311 22nd Ave. N. Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 983-8900 Fax: (615) 682-8533 Email: john@spragenslaw.com - and - Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. Rosemary Medellin Rivas, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP 1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Fax: (510) 350-9701 Email: rlm@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Miller & Martin 150 4th Ave N Ste 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com - and - Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-3592 Email: kingram@bradley.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: VIP Physicians Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as VIP Physicians Consulting LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00556 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02385-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. 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: Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Email: jlichtman@lchb.com - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Fax: (615) 313-9965 Email: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 150 4th Ave N Ste 1550 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Email: mchalos@lchb.com - and - Melissa Gardner, Esq. Michael K. Sheen, Esq. Michael W. Sobol, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP (SAN FRANCISCO) 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: (415) 956-1000 Email: mgardner@lchb.com msheen@lchb.com msobol@lchb.com CHARLES RIVER: District Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shearman & Sterling LLP, writing for mondaq, reports that on July 1, 2024, Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a drug-development company and certain of its officers. State Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Charles River Lab. Int'l, Inc., No. 23-cv-11132-DJC (D. Mass. July 1, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants misled investors to believe that the company complied with all applicable laws in its importation of endangered non-human primates ("NHPs") for animal testing of biologic pharmaceuticals. The Court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiff failed to identify any actionable statement or omission in the company's filings or to adequately allege that defendants acted with the requisite scienter. The company is in the business of importing animals, including NHPs, either to sell to pharmaceutical companies for use in drug-safety assessment studies or to use, itself, in conducting such assessments for clients. The NHP most frequently used for pharmaceutical testing is the long-tailed macaque. The commercial trade of macaques is protected by federal and international law, which essentially prohibit the possession, sale, or receipt of any macaque that is captured from the wild, as opposed to captive bred. As COVID-19 emerged in late 2019 and early 2020, demand for macaques surged for the purpose of testing the safety and efficacy of a vaccine. Yet, at the same time, China -- where the company allegedly sourced most of its NHPs -- imposed strict restrictions on the export of macaques, forcing the company to turn elsewhere. Plaintiff alleged the company shifted to Cambodia, from where it obtained more than 15,000 macaques between 2020 and 2022 from several Cambodia-based suppliers. In 2021, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced that it was investigating the unlawful trafficking of wild macaques into the United States from Cambodia. That year, the DOJ allegedly issued grand jury subpoenas to three Cambodian-based suppliers from whom the company received thousands of macaques, as well as to the company. As a result of the investigation, the DOJ indicted executives at a network of related companies that own macaque breeding farms in Southeast Asia, including in Cambodia, for allegedly conspiring to introduce wild macaques into the supply chain of customers in the United States. Several of the company's suppliers allegedly obtained macaques from this farming network. The company's stock fell when this news broke. Plaintiff filed suit in 2023, alleging that the company made numerous statements in its public filings that were false and misleading at the times made. These purported misrepresentations primarily concern the company's: (1) contacts with the Cambodian supplier whose executives were indicted in 2022; (2) dealings with "non-preferred suppliers"; (3) sourcing of "purpose-bred" macaques; and (4) compliance with applicable import laws and regulations regarding NHPs. The Court addressed each category of alleged misstatements in turn, ultimately finding that plaintiff failed to identify any actionable statement. First, the Court found that, even crediting plaintiff's allegations, the company's representations that (1) it had no "direct contracts" with indicted suppliers, (2) it did not engage "non-preferred suppliers" of macaques, and (3) it provided only purpose-bred, specific pathogen free macaques, all were true, because plaintiff never actually alleged that the company had violated any pertinent law or actually obtained macaques from the indicted supplier. The Court also found it to be significant that the company disclosed that it received a DOJ subpoena in connection with the investigation no less than five days after it had been issued. To the extent that plaintiff sought to premise falsity on statements in the company's codes of business conduct and ethics, the Court found that such statements lacked enough specificity to amount to anything more than non-actionable corporate puffery. The Court next addressed plaintiff's theory of scienter. The gravamen of plaintiff's allegations centered upon the individual defendants' alleged pattern of selling and transferring company stock during the pendency of the DOJ's investigation and before that investigation was publicized. But the Court found that these allegations failed to raise a strong inference of scienter because trading data disclosed that the individual defendants frequently sold or gifted stock and, moreover, that the individual defendants' holdings increased in the period leading up to the company's publicization of the DOJ investigation and its receipt of a grand jury subpoena in 2022. The individual defendants, therefore, increased their financial exposure to drops in company stock during the period of the DOJ's investigation and leading up to its indictment, thereby weakening the inference that defendants sought to defraud investors by selling off stock. The Court also denied plaintiff's "informal request" for leave to further amend the complaint, emphasizing that plaintiff had not formally sought leave but rather had merely included the request in a footnote in its opposition brief. [GN] CHICK-FIL-A INC: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tyler Martin, Cristian Torres, and Brittany Rivera on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Chick-fil-A, Inc., Sonrisa Franchise Holdings, Inc., Mega Franchise Holdings Inc., Case No. 653056/2024 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05451. The Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to recover uniform maintenance pay and uniform purchase costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and "such other relief as deemed just and proper," based on the alleged unlawful failure to pay uniform maintenance pay pursuant to Article 19 of the New York Labor Law and its supporting regulations. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is framed as a putative class action and seeks recovery for purported wage violations under New York law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq. Lucas Hakkenberg, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Email: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com lucas.hakkenberg@morganlewis.com CHRYSLER LLC: RAM Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Anderson, writing for Carscoops, reports that a settlement has been reached more than seven years after the class action lawsuit was filed. -- Impacted Ram models are equipped with 6.7-liter Cummins diesel engines. -- Each of the 17 plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit will receive $5,000. A settlement has been preliminary approved for owners of certain Ram 2500 and Ram 3500 models equipped with faulty Cummins diesel engines. However, the settlement will only set Cummins $4.8 million back, while Chrysler will need to cough up just $1.2 million. The lawsuit was first filed in 2017 and alleges that hundreds of thousands of Ram trucks in the U.S. were equipped with 6.7-liter Cummins diesel engines that emit illegal levels of emissions, often require expensive repairs, and do not hit their claimed gas mileage figures. While Chrysler has denied all allegations, it is claimed that 2013-2015 Ram 2500 and 3500 diesel trucks were fitted with catalytic reduction systems that did not work as designed. The plaintiffs had been seeking compensation for the purchase price of their trucks and to recover the cost of overpayment for repairs, as well as the decrease in value of their vehicles. After the lawsuit dragged on for seven years, the carmaker decided to settle because of the "substantial expense, inconvenience, burden and disruption of continued litigation," Car Complaints reports. Through the settlement, Cummins will pay $4.8 million, and Chrysler will pay $1.2 million into a fund to cover the cost of everything, including attorney fees and expenses. The final amount to be paid to each truck customer will vary "but is estimated to be approximately $100.40 per Eligible Truck." Interestingly, the settlement will only benefit those who purchased or leased a new 2013, 2014, or 2015 Ram 2500 or 3500 between November 26, 2014, and July 13, 2016. Additionally, the settlement only covers owners in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. The lawsuit was filed by 17 Ram owners and each will receive $5,000 in compensation through the settlement. The lawyers representing the clients are seeking at least $1.8 million for their work on the case. A final fairness hearing for the case has been scheduled for October 10, 2024. [GN] CHUY'S HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Darden ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating Chuy's Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHUY), relating to its proposed merger with Darden Restaurants, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Chuy's Holdings shareholders will receive $37.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chuys-holdings-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] CLEAN CONTROL: Robertson Sues Over Disinfectants' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEAN CONTROL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-01478 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2024) is a California consumer class action for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, through its advertising, false and misleading representations, including the Odoban Concentrate Disinfectant's labeling that the Product makes up to 32 gallons. The Product is a "Concentrate" that is intended to be diluted with water prior to use. The front label of the Product prominently says that it "Makes Up to 32 Gallons." This claim is false and misleading because the Product is in fact only capable of making a fraction of the number of gallons when diluted for almost every use according to Defendant's mixing instructions. For example, the Product only makes 6.8 gallons when mixed for use as an "Air Freshener" The Defendant allegedly fails to disclose that the advertised "Makes Up to 32 Gallons" amount can only be achieved by following the mixing instructions for "Cleaning Solution." However, reasonable consumers like the Plaintiff would expect that the advertised "Makes Up to 32 Gallons" would be for most uses, including use as an air freshener and deodorizer. Indeed, the front label of the Product says it "eliminates odors," is a "disinfectant," and is an "air freshener." Accordingly, reasonable consumers would understand that the "Makes Up to 32 Gallons" applies to these uses. The Plaintiff, who purchased the Product in California, was deceived by the Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy the Defendant's unlawful acts, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased the Product at a Sam's Club and/or Home Depot store in Palm Desert, California during the Class Period. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells the Odoban Concentrate Disinfectant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-763 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com COINBASE INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss UST Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul, Weiss achieved a significant victory for publicly traded cryptocurrency exchange platform Coinbase when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in full Coinbase's motion to dismiss a putative class action concerning Coinbase's listing of the algorithmic stablecoin UST. In his second amended complaint filed in March 2024, the plaintiff alleged that Coinbase Inc., and its parent, Coinbase Global, Inc., misrepresented the nature and stability of UST, including by categorizing it as a "stablecoin," and that the plaintiff suffered losses when the value of UST dropped below $1.00 USD in May 2022. The plaintiff also claimed that Coinbase was negligent in failing to do appropriate testing and due diligence on UST before listing it for sale on its platform. The plaintiff asserted nine state law causes of action, comprising claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of various consumer protection and securities statutes. In its motion to dismiss, Coinbase argued, among other things, that the plaintiff's negligence-related claims were barred by the economic loss rule, that Coinbase had not made any actionable misrepresentation or omission, and that the plaintiff had failed to adequately allege any violation of the California securities laws because he did not allege that he was in privity with Coinbase. Coinbase also asserted that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was barred because the parties were in contractual privity and that the plaintiff could not sustain his Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim because the CLRA does not apply to digital assets. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney accepted Coinbase's arguments and dismissed all nine of the plaintiff's claims. Most significantly, the court agreed that the plaintiff had pled himself out of court by relying on materials in his complaint that showed that a reasonable consumer would not have been misled by Coinbase's statements. The Paul, Weiss team included litigation partners Meredith Dearborn, Randy Luskey and Paul Brachman. [GN] CONTEMPORARY SERVICES: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL FLORES, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. CONTEMPORARY SERVICES CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV14955 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 14, 2024) is a representative action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees, for recovery of civil penalties under California Labor Code arising from Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices. The complaint asserts the Defendants' violation of the state law by failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees; failing to pay all earned overtime compensation; failing to provide all legally required meal and rest periods; failing to reimburse for all necessary expenditures; failing to timely pay all final wages due; failing to furnish with complete, accurate, itemized wage statements; failing to pay all earned wages at least twice during each calendar month; and failing to maintain accurate records. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a non-exempt employee in the position of "Security Officer" (or other similarly-titled position) in approximately December 2021. Contemporary Services Corp. provides crowd management, security, and other related services to various events and venues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Frost Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 0:24-cv-02785 (D. Minn., July 18, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Website www.costco.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of their experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content – content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023). The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are blind and low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. The Defendant offers groceries, household essentials, and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, furniture, health and personal care products, home improvement, mattresses, jewelry, gardening materials, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DAPPER LABS: Court Approves NBA Top Shot Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of NBA Top Shot Moments: SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED NBA TOP SHOT MOMENTS FROM JUNE 15, 2020 TO DECEMBER 27, 2021, INCLUSIVE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on September 27, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Victor Marrero, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15B, New York, NY 10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $4,000,000 and the Business Changes should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $40,000, and a service payment of no more than $20,000 in total to Plaintiffs should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 3, 2024 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Fairness Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. If you purchased or otherwise acquired NBA Top Shot Moments ("Moments") from June 15, 2020 to December 27, 2021, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Moments. If you need assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may write to, call, or contact the Claims Administrator: Dapper Labs, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Phone) (833) 279-8069; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Notice and submit your Claim Form online at www.FrielvDapperLabsSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form electronically or postmarked no later than August 30, 2024 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than August 30, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than August 30, 2024, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 - and - Phillip Kim The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: Kenneth P. Herzinger Paul Hastings LLP 101 California Street Forty-Eighth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Phillip Kim THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 philkim@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: JUNE 4, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] DCOMM INC: Faces Bussey Wage and Hour Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------- DAYVEON BUSSEY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCOMM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00748 (W.D. Tex., July 3, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. From approximately July 2023 to February 2024, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a field technician in Ohio. Throughout his employment, he was required to perform unpaid work each workday. In addition, the Plaintiff was not paid for the time spent refueling his assigned company vehicle and was not reimbursed for the fuel expenses. Moreover, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated field technicians were not compensated for all of the time they worked, including all of the overtime hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. Headquartered in Travis County, TX, DCOMM, Inc. is a cable and internet installation and service company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713-523-0001 Facsimile: 713-523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com DELSEA 205 LTD: Cheli Files Suit Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual Plaintiff v. DELSEA 205 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07536 (D.N.J., July 3, 2024) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against 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 and LAD. Delsea 205 Limited Liability Company owns and/or operates a shopping center/plaza -- known as Delsea Shopping Center -- located at 205-245 S. Delsea Drive, Vineland, NJ. [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 DOMA HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Title Resources ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Doma Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: DOMA), relating to its proposed sale to Title Resources Group. Under the terms of the agreement, DOMA shareholders are expected to receive $6.29 in cash per share they own. THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 27, 2024. 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 sha 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] DTC ENERGY: Rodriguez Seeks Safety Supervisors' Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DTC ENERGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01955-STV (D. Colo., July 16, 2024) seeks to recover overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers -- day rate safety supervisors -- who work or have worked across the country for DTC Energy's customers. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Safety Supervisors work on the mining and oil well sites and typically work at least 12-14-hour shifts, 5-7 days a week, for weeks at a time, all while in some of the harshest working conditions, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and other Safety Supervisors like him regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. However, the Defendant allegedly did not pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Despite having substantial custody and control over Safety Supervisors and being their employer, Defendant misclassified them as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime compensation, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former Safety Supervisors who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA by the Defendant that has deprived the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of their lawfully earned wages. Mr. Rodriguez was employed by DTC Energy as a Safety Supervisor from July 2022 through November 2022. DTC is an oilfield and mining operations consulting firm that services dozens of different oil and mining clients across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com aortiz@fslawfirm.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza No. 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@fslawfirm.com EAST SIDE PIZZA: Essa Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- Tamer Essa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. East Side Pizza Corp., 1580 Food Corp., Hesham Attia, and Mohamed Morsi, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05080 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and their supporting New York Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiff Essa was employed as a non-managerial employee at La Mia Pizza from on or around January 1, 2023 to, through and including, July 31, 2023. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff worked for a total period of approximately 54 hours during each of the weeks but he was only paid a flat rate of $13 per hour. Moreover, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. East Side Pizza Corp. owns, operates and/or controls the pizzeria known as “La Mia Pizza” located at 1580 1st Ave. New York, NY. [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, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com ELITE TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Javier R. Cuesta, and other similarly situated individuals v. Elite Transport Care, LLC, Yoel Ochoa, and Ruben Arencibia, Individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-00656-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla., July 18, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime compensation, retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked five days per week, from Monday to Friday, on an irregular schedule. Every week, the Plaintiff worked a minimum average of 55 hours. The Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunchtime hours. The Plaintiff was paid for almost all his hours but at his regular rate, the suit avers. The Plaintiff repeatedly complained to the business owner, Ruben Arencibia, about working too many hours without payment for overtime for hours. The plaintiff also complained about missing working hours. On June 12, 2024, the Plaintiff complained about unpaid overtime hours for the last time to Ruben Arencibia. As a consequence, the Defendant Ruben Arencibia fired the Plaintiff on June 14, 2024, says the suit. Plaintiff Cuesta was employed by the Defendant as a driver from Apr. 15, 2023, to June 14, 2024, or 61 weeks. Elite provides non-emergency medical transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Faces Variable Annuities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DiCello Levitt LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent those who invested in and/or made contributions to an EQUI-VEST variable annuity between July 15, 2019 and July 18, 2022 (the "Class Period"). Captioned Devlin v. Equitable Financial Life Ins. Co., Case No. 24-cv-5962 (N.D. Ill.), the EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit charges Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. EQUI-VEST investors have until September 16, 2024, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit. If you suffered losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, please provide your information here: https://dicellolevitt.com/securities/equi-vest You can also contact DiCello Levitt attorney Brian O'Mara by calling (888) 287-9005 or at investors@dicellolevitt.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 16, 2024. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Case Allegations: Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company is an insurance company that provides variable annuity, life insurance, and employee benefit products to both individuals and businesses. The EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit alleges that Equitable charged investors significant undisclosed fees on their EQUI-VEST variable annuities, held within 403(b) or 457(b) supplemental retirement savings plans, in violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs.78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. Since at least 2016, through at least the first half of 2022, Defendant's account statements excluded the most significant fees that investors paid on their accounts. Instead, the account statements listed as fees only certain types of administrative, transaction, and plan operating fees -- most often amounting to zero or a very small number -- which were, in fact, only a slight fraction of the overall fees paid by the investor. The Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who held and invested in EQUI-VEST variable annuities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the EQUI-VEST class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. About DiCello Levitt: At DiCello Levitt, we are dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, civil and human rights, and mass tort litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases – whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise – for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations – and our capital – on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. The New York Law Journal also recently recognized DiCello Levitt as a Distinguished Leader in trial innovation. For more information about the Firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Media Contact: Amy Coker 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 963-2426 investors@dicellolevitt.com [GN] FANTASIA TRADING: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fantasia Trading, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05146 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2024) is a civil rights action against Fantasia Trading for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.us.soundcore.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Agostini has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Us.soundcore.com. She tried to purchase wireless headphones on May 20, 2024, but was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Us.soundcore.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons. Because of Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Us.soundcore.com, the Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Fantasia Trading's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Fantasia Trading, LLC operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view audio products and accessories including headphones, earbuds, speakers, ear tips, charging cases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com FAT BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 6 --------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein") announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Fat Brands Inc. ("Fat Brands" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FAT, FATBB, FATBP, FATBW) securities between March 24, 2022 and May 10, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares and incurred losses are advised to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses, you may, no later than August 6, 2024, request that the Court appoint you as the lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights. The filed Complaint in the lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: -- Defendants did not disclose that Andrew A. Wiederhorn, the Company's Chairman and former CEO, had received improper payments from the Company, exposing Fat Brands to criminal liability and; -- as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. The truth emerged on May 10, 2024, when the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California issued a press release entitled "Former CEO and Controlling Shareholder of Fat Brands Inc., Former CFO, and a Tax Advisor Indicted in Alleged Scheme to Conceal $47 million Paid to CEO in the Form of Shareholder Loans." (the "Announcement"). The Complaint alleges that the Announcement specified that the indicted parties were Fat Brands itself, Andrew Wiederhorn (the former CEO and current controlling Fat Brands shareholder), Rebecca Hershinger (the former Fat Brands CFO), and William J. Amon (a one-time managing director of Andersen's Los Angeles office, who provided tax-advisory services to Wiederhorn, Fat Brands, and Fog Cutter Capital Corporation, a former Fat Brands affiliate). The Announcement stated that "Andrew A. Wiederhorn, the former CEO and current controlling shareholder of [Fat Brands], has been indicted on federal charges alleging a scheme to conceal $47 million in distributions he received in the form of shareholder loans from the IRS, FAT's minority shareholders, and the broader investing public[.]" The Complaint further alleges that the Announcement stated that "Wiederhorn-assisted by FAT's [CFO] and his outside accountant at advisory firm Andersen – concealed millions of dollars in reportable compensation and taxable income and evaded the payment of millions of dollars in taxes, while causing FAT itself to violate the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's prohibition on direct and indirect extensions of credit to public-company CEOs in the form of a personal loan." On this news, Fat Brands publicly traded securities closed as follow: -- Class A common stock fell by $2.08 per share, or 27.73%, to close at $5.42 on May 10, 2024. -- Class B common stock fell by $2.02 per share, or 28.85%, to close at $4.98 on May 10, 2024. -- 8.25% Series B Cumulative Preferred Stock fell by $1.08 per share, or 7.24% to close at $13.82 on May 10, 2024. -- Warrants fell by $1.05 per warrant, or 21.6%, to close at $3.80 on May 10, 2024. Wolf Haldenstein has experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas, and offices in New York, Chicago, Nashville and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Website Not Blind-Accessible, Trippett Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fitness International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04728 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2024) is a civil rights action against Fitness International for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.lafitness.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Trippett has made an attempt to visit and use Lafitness.com. He tried to learn more information about the goods and services offered by the company on May 3, 2024, but he was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Lafitness.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired persons. Amongst other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to learn more information about fitness club locations and hours of operation, compare prices and benefits and learn more information about the goods and services in its physical location, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Fitness International's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Fitness International, LLC provides to the public the website which provides consumers with access to an array of fitness amenities including group fitness classes, indoor cycling, whirlpool spa, indoor pool, sauna, and personal training services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com FIVE BELOW: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Laws Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating whether Five Below, Inc. (NASDAQ: FIVE) or any of its executive officers or others violated securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material, adverse information to investors. The investigation focuses on investors’ losses and whetherthey may be recovered under federal securities laws. What if I purchased Five Below securities? If you purchased securities and suffered losses on your investment, join our investigation now: Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471. There is no cost or obligation to you. What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On July 16, 2024, Five Below formally announced that Joel Anderson has resigned from his positions as President and CEO, as well as from his seat on the Board of Directors. Concurrently, the company projected a decrease of 6% to 7% in comparable sales for the fiscal second quarter ending August 3, 2024. Following this news, the stock dropped 9% during afterhours trading on July 16, 2024. What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who provide original information may, under certain circumstances, receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for its content. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq., (619) 814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] FRANTIC INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Delacruz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05105 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff Delacruz alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law by failing to update or remove access barriers on its website so it can be independently accessible to the blind or visually-impaired people. Frantic, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.metallica.com, which allow consumers to purchase gifts, merch, apparel, music, accessories and other products available online. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Sievertsen Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Sievertsen, individually and for others similarly situated v. Freeport-McMoRan Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01749-JCG (D. Ariz., July 16, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Freeport-McMoRan Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and their implementing regulations. The suit alleges that Freeport does not pay Sievertsen and its other Miners for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing, attending meetings, gathering and storing their tools and equipment, washing-up, and submitting reports "off the clock," before and after their scheduled shifts. Plaintiff Sievertsen and the other Miners regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Freeport does not pay Sievertsen and its other Miners for all their hours worked, including overtime hours, the suit claims. Additionally, Freeport does not provide, authorize, or permit the Plaintiff Sievertsen and the other Colorado Miners to receive bona fide rest breaks. And Freeport does not provide the Plaintiff Sievertsen and the other Colorado Miners compensation for the rest breaks it fails to provide, says the suit. Mr. Sievertsen worked for Freeport as a Miner in Freeport's Henderson Mine in Clear Creek County, Colorado from February 2021 through May 2022. Freeport is an American mining company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 Facsimile: (602) 926-1479 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com FROST BANK: Clarke Suit Alleges Illegal Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------- ROY G. CLARKE, for himself and all others similarly situated v. FROST BANK and FRIDGE & RESENDEZ, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00744 (W.D. Tex., July 3, 2024) seeks for damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and for monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief under related state law claims, including under the Texas Debt Collection Act. The case seeks to curb abuse of the judgment revival process in Texas state courts. The practice has allegedly allowed Defendants to pursue debtors over time-barred judgment debts long after they expired. Moreover, Plaintiff Clarke asserts that Defendants' attempts to collect them despite their expiration--the letters, threats of legal action, charging of judgment interest, offers of settlement, the encumbrance if not seizure of debtors' property -- are all unlawful under the FDCPA and the TDCA. Frost Bank, formerly known as The Frost National Bank, is a Texas state bank headquartered San Antonio, TX. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Denton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID T. DENTON, P.C. 4040 Broadway, Suite 240 (mail) and 425 (office) San Antonio, TX 78209 Telephone: (210) 460-6500 E-mail: ddenton@dtdfirm.com GARRETT WADE: Figueroa Hits Unwanted Text Message Solicitations --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARRETT WADE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-008407 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 16, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Garrett and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Garrett Wade Company, Inc. provides garden tools and other hands-on products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com GEISINGER HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Albright Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RUTH ALBRIGHT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. GEISINGER HEALTH and NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01174-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 16, 2024) sues the Defendants for failing to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within the Defendants' information network. The suit contends that the Plaintiff is now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of her health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, and such risk may last for the rest of her life. Consequently, the Plaintiff must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect herself, to the extent possible, from these crimes. As a result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff suffered actual damages including time related to monitoring her financial accounts for fraudulent activity, facing an increased and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, the lost value of her personal information, and other economic and non-economic harm. The Plaintiff and Class members will now be forced to expend additional time, efforts, and potentially expenses to review their credit reports, monitor their financial accounts, and monitor for fraud or identify theft – particularly since the compromised information may include Social Security numbers, the suit adds. To recover from the Defendants for her sustained, ongoing, and future harms, the Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to: 1) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of PHI/PII accessed, obtained, or exposed by the hackers; 2) implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of PHI/PII possessed by Defendants; and 3) provide, at its own expense, all impacted victims with lifetime identity theft protection services, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff is a patient of Geisinger and her information was stored with and handled by the Defendants as a result of her dealings with the Defendants. Geisinger is a regional health care provider to central, south-central and northeastern Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Noncompete Agreements Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports that in a significant legal victory for Alphabet, the parent company of Google, a California federal court ruled in favor of the tech giant on Monday, July 15, dismissing a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged restrictive practices in its digital-mapping products. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, rejected claims that Google unlawfully limited how developers could use its mapping technology. The plaintiffs, including Dream Big Media, a marketing company, filed the lawsuit in 2022. They argued that Google's terms of service unjustly prohibited developers from integrating Google Maps with non-Google data, forcing them to pay higher prices for mapping services. The technology in question allows users to embed Google Maps and related information about locations and routes into third-party websites or apps. Judge Seeborg's decision highlighted the plaintiffs' failure to provide sufficient evidence that Google was monopolizing the market for mapping services. The dismissal was issued with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs are barred from refiling the case. The proposed class included businesses, application developers, and individual users of Google's mapping products. Central to the lawsuit was the contention that users should have the flexibility to "mix and match" Google's mapping services with those of its competitors for interactive web and app features. The plaintiffs claimed that Google's restrictions impeded such interoperability. Google countered these allegations by arguing that the plaintiffs misunderstood the company's mapping terms of service. According to Google, customers cannot "link" a Google map with non-Google content. The company also noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide any examples of Google preventing developers from using or displaying non-Google content alongside a Google Map. While this ruling represents a notable win for Google, the company continues to face other legal challenges. These include lawsuits targeting its search business and digital advertising practices, with allegations from the U.S. government and others claiming anticompetitive behavior. Google has consistently denied these allegations. [GN] HEALTHCARE INC: Seeks Arbitration/Judgment in Contract Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- HEALTHCARE, INC., and HEALTHCARE.COM INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT DOYLE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01769-MTL (D. Ariz., July 18, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and/or fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, malicious prosecution, and for costs and attorneys' fees. The case arises from the Defendant's wrongful initiation of multiple civil proceedings against Healthcare, Inc. (HCI) and its subsidiary, Healthcare.com Insurance Services, LLC (HISL), and his subsequent abuse of the legal process. Mr. Doyle specifically filed three class action complaints against HCI/HISL in two federal jurisdictions, based on demonstrably false allegations that they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). And despite having access to facts that disproved his claims before initiating the first suit, Mr. Doyle refused to dismiss his claims with prejudice until almost a year later. The Plaintiffs seek to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act in accordance with the contract between the parties. Alternatively, and in the interests of preventing further costs and delay, the Plaintiffs seek a judgment from this Court awarding their costs and fees incurred in defending against Mr. Doyle's lawsuits. Healthcare, Inc. is an online health insurance company, with a principal place of business located in Miami, Florida. Healthcare.com Insurance Services, LLC is a subsidiary of Healthcare, Inc. with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 1055 Howell Mill Road, 8th Floor Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 782-0695 Email: ryan@wtlaw.com HORIZON HOBBY: Figueroa Sues Over Text Message Solicitations ------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HORIZON HOBBY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-008406 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 16, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Horizon Hobby and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Horizon Hobby, LLC is an American multinational hobby-grade radio control model and model train manufacturer and distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com HUMAN POWER: Johnson Suit Hits Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- LUKE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMAN POWER OF N COMPANY d/b/a HUMANN, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05691 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to promote its goods and services and continues to text message Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Human Power of N d/b/a HumanN is a vitamin and supplements store headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, #417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com INNOVAGE HOLDING: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to August 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McLeod v. Innovage Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02770 (D. Colo., Filed Oct. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to file opposition to motion for class certification. -- The Defendants are granted leave, for good cause shown, to file the Response on or before Aug. 23, 2024. The nature of suit states Securities Fraud. InnovAge Corp. is a healthcare delivery platform.[CC] INSPIRE BRANDS: Taferner Sues Over Illegal Dine-In Fee Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MICHAEL TAFERNER, an individual; ITZEL DIAZ, an individual; and ROES 1-50; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSPIRE BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; VALE MERGER SUB, INC., a Delaware corporation; DUNKIN’ BRANDS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; DUNKIN’ DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05711 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated customers, who were charged a dine-in fee or other hidden fee at various Dunkin'(R) restaurants, a brand owned, managed, and licensed by Defendants, in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiffs assert they were unknowingly charged a dine-in fee or other junk fee by Defendants at its Dunkin'(R) branded locations. They contend, based on information and belief, that Defendants never disclosed the existence of a dine-in fee or other hidden fee at its locations, whether verbally or in writing, at any time prior to each Plaintiff paying for their order. In the event Defendants properly informed Plaintiffs and members of the Class that a dine-in fee or other hidden fee would apply to their orders, one or more Plaintiffs or members of the Class would not have paid for their order, or would have elected carry out, without the addition of the hidden fee, says the suit. Inspire Brands, Inc. is an American fast-food restaurant franchise company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cameron Nazemi, Esq. CWN, INC., A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 122 Waterford Circle Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Telephone: (949) 677-5296 Facsimile: (760) 770-6810 E-mail: cwnfirm@gmail.com INSTITUTE FOR PLASTIC: Leman Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Battery --------------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA LEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTITUTE FOR PLASTIC SURGERY, LTD., and OTIS ALLEN, MD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01248-JBM-JEH (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and for battery. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee starting in or around January 2022. Institute for Plastic Surgery, Ltd. is a plastic surgery center doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Fletcher, Esq. THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60642 Telephone: (312) 736-7991 Email: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com ISLAND SWIMMING: Agnone Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISLAND SWIMMING SALES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04979 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 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 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.islandrecreational.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: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, the lack of navigation links, inadequate focus order, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of descriptive alt-text on graphics and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. 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. Island Swimming Sales, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com JAGUAR LAND: Settles Faulty Infotainment Systems Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Brad Anderson, writing for CarScoops, reports that Jaguar Land Rover vehicles are said to have radio, smartphone integration, and climate control problems. Jaguar Land Rover will roll out new over-the-air software updates to resolve the issues. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs could walk away with $795,000. Jaguar Land Rover has denied claims from a class action lawsuit alleging defects with its InControl Touch Pro and InControl Touch Pro Duo infotainment displays but the carmaker has reached a settlement. A lawsuit filed against the manufacturer asserts that certain vehicles have problems related to their radios, smartphone integration, heating, and air conditioning. They are also said to suffer from problems related to the rearview camera displays and navigation systems. Impacted vehicles include: -- 2017-2020 Land Rover Range Rover -- 2017-2020 Land Rover Range Rover Sport -- 2018-2020 Land Rover Range Rover Velar -- 2016-2020 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque -- 2017-2020 Land Rover Discovery -- 2017-2020 Land Rover Discovery Sport -- 2018-2020 Jaguar E-Pace -- 2017-2020 Jaguar F-Pace -- 2019-2020 Jaguar I-Pace -- 2018-2020 Jaguar F-Type -- 2017-2020 Jaguar XE -- 2016-2020 Jaguar XF -- 2016-2019 Jaguar XJ The class action filed against JLR asserts that the company has been unable to resolve the problems and has not introduced effective software updates. Interestingly, buyers and lessees of impacted vehicles won't be financially compensated through the settlement, and instead, JLR will issue a field service action. Certain vehicles will receive an over-the-air software update, while older models that don't support OTA updates will be retrofitted with a newer system that does offer support, reports Car Complaints. Owners of vehicles with the older system will have one year from the date of the settlement to bring their vehicle to a dealership to have the new setup installed. Jaguar Land Rover will also extend the warranty for the infotainment master controller used for an extra year, regardless of if the original vehicle warranty has expired. Three plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, Blake George, Stuart Jolly, and Laszlo Vas, will each receive $5,000. The lawyers representing them are also seeking $795,000 for their work on the case. [GN] JUNO VILLAGE: Feltzin Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE FELTZIN, Plaintiff v. JUNO VILLAGE REALTY INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80831 (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The individual Plaintiff visits the Defendant's commercial property and businesses in Juno Beach, Florida on or about April 23, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. He often visits the commercial property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately 34 miles from his residence and is near other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. The barriers to access at the commercial property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit. Plaintiff Feltzin is paralyzed and is substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment. Juno Village Realty Inc. owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com KAILAS INTERNATIONAL: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ESLIMERARI RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAILAS INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a PAGODA RED, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05730 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.pagodared.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on January 31, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the coffee table, she wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. 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. Kailas International, Inc., d/b/a Pagoda Red, is and antique store in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com KNOWMORE LEGAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Compensation Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristian Silva, writing for abc.net.au, reports that a class action has been launched against Knowmore Legal, with sexual abuse survivors alleging the service encouraged them to accept compensation payments that were lower than what they could have received. Knowmore Legal says it will "vigorously" defend the claims in court. The trauma Brian suffered from child sexual abuse impacted his health, relationships and ability to work for five decades. In 2020, he received just $43,000 in compensation. "It felt like I was being kicked in the teeth," he said. Brian, who did not want his surname published, said his life was ruined by two paedophiles who abused him while he lived in a Salvation Army boys' home in Melbourne's east, between 1974 and 1976. "To this day I still have nightmares, wake up in cold sweats. It never goes away," Brian, now 62, said. Lawyers from Arnold Thomas & Becker argue Brian could have received a much higher compensation payout. In a statement of claim lodged in the Supreme Court of Victoria, they allege Brian's former lawyers from the government-funded Knowmore Legal centre "breached its duty of care" to him. Knowmore is alleged to have encouraged Brian to accept compensation through the National Redress Scheme, where payouts are capped at $150,000, instead of directly pursuing the Salvation Army in court. Kim Price, a partner with Arnold Thomas & Becker, said potentially thousands of other abuse survivors around the country were in the same position as Brian. In court documents, Knowmore is alleged to have provided legal services "by using standard processes and template documents" and emphasising the costs, risks and delays of going to court, without telling clients potential payouts were "likely to be higher" than the redress payment. Knowmore is a not-for-profit centre that provides free advice and support to survivors of child sexual abuse around the country. Almost half of its clients identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. "Knowmore is disappointed that legal action has commenced and will vigorously defend the claims made against it in court," chief executive Jackie Mead said. "Knowmore has proudly helped thousands of clients over many years to obtain redress from the National Redress Scheme." The centre is yet to file its legal defence in the Supreme Court. Vast differences in compensation payouts Brian and at least 180 other former Knowmore clients have signed up to the class action against the centre. Recent cases where abuse survivors went to court resulted in multi-million dollar compensation payouts. Last year, former Western Bulldogs waterboy Adam Kneale was awarded $5.9 million after suing the club, while the Catholic Church was ordered to pay $4.1 million to a man abused by a priest. The Bulldogs and the church have lodged appeals. In a 2015 NSW case, the state was ordered to pay $2.6 million to two sisters abused by their stepfather. When Brian agreed to the redress payment, it prevented him from making further legal claims against the Salvation Army and State of Victoria. He is now seeking damages from Knowmore Legal and hopes to receive enough money to buy a house and enjoy the rest of his life with his children and grandchildren. "These people were supposed to be on my side. I felt like a number and that just got me so angry," he said. Mr Price said collectively, Knowmore's former clients had potentially missed out on millions of dollars in compensation. "What we've found is that the advice that many of these individuals have received from Knowmore Legal service was completely devoid and deficient in terms of personalised, tailored advice in relation to the value of the claim that the person was giving up," he said. Mr Price said the class action would be run on a no win, no fee basis, and acknowledged the case could take years to drag through the courts. The National Redress Scheme was set up in response to the child sexual abuse royal commission, and is open for applications until mid-2027. [GN] LAKESHORE LEARNING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Agostini Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05350 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website "Lakeshorelearning.com" to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Lakeshore Learning Materials provides to their non-disabled customers through their website, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Lakeshorelearning.com. She tried to purchase a keepsake portfolio on May 20, 2024 and was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the many access barriers on the Defendant's website, the suit claims. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Lakeshore Learning Materials' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination Ms. Agostini is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Lakeshore offers teaching resources, books, classroom decorations, classroom furniture, games, craft supplies and art tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com LENNAR CORP: Faces New Class Action Suit Over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, writing for National Law Review, reports that home builder Lennar Corporation is facing a new TCPA class action alleging it left prerecorded voicemails offering financing for new homes. The messages were allegedly left without the consent of the consumer and despite Plaintiff being on the national DNC list. Plaintiff claims these calls violate state and federal law. She sues on her own behalf and on behalf of a classes defined as: "TCPA 227(b) Class" 11.1.1.1. Since July 15, 2020, through the date of certification, Plaintiff and all persons within the United States to whose cellular telephone number Defendant placed a prerecorded or artificial voice telemarketing call. 11.1.2. "TCPA 227(c) Class" 11.1.2.1. Since July 15, 2020, through the date of certification, all persons within the United States to whose telephone number Defendant placed two or more telemarketing solicitation calls in a 12-month period when the telephone number to which the telephone calls were made was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the calls. 11.1.3. Texas Sec. 305.053 Class" 11.1.3.1. Since July 15, 2020, through the date of certification, Plaintiff and all residents of the State of Texas to whose telephone number Defendant placed a call in violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 or regulation promulgated thereunder. Really interesting case here. The state law class is an OBVIOUS failsafe and I expect that to be stricken. The other two classes are overly broad. So will be interesting to see if it gets off the ground. Regardless I cannot think of another TCPA suit against a home builder -- at least not for years. So I will be curious to see where this goes. Noteworthy that most courts DO treat voicemails as "calls" for TCPA purposes, so the lack of consent here could be a real issue. I am curious is this is a lead gen situation or a Lennar didn't know the rules situation. (Or maybe its a Plaintiff got it wrong situation.) We'll see soon enough. [GN] LIT HOTELS: Faces Bodie Suit Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- LISA BODIE, Individually, Plaintiff v. LIT HOTELS LLC., an Arkansas Limited Liability Company, and I SQUARE MANAGEMENT LLC, an Arkansas Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00565-LPR (E.D. Ark., July 3, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Bodie qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA and requires the use of a service dog. The Plaintiff made a reservation to stay at the Defendants' property on February 27, 2024. However, when she arrived at Defendants' property, she was denied access thereto because of her service dog, says the Plaintiff. Lit Hotels, LLC owns and/or operates the hotel known as the Holiday Inn Express Little Rock-Airport located at 3121 Bankhead Dr., Little Rock, AR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Denise Hoggard, Esq. RAINWATER, HOLT AND SEXTON PO Box 17250 Little Rock, AR 72222 Telephone: (501) 868-2982 E-mail: hoggard@rainfirm.com LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Wurm Alleges Unwanted Text Message Solicitations ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LULIFAMA.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-008395 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 14, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Luli Fama and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Lulifama.Com, LLC is a Latin-owned women's swim and resort wear brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gyani Sues Over 'Greenwashing' Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------ Meghan Hall, writing for Sourcing Journal, report that a new class-action lawsuit alleges Lululemon is a mean, not-so-green, athleisure-hawking machine. Amandeep Gyani, a Florida resident, filed the proposed class action on July 12 in Florida's Southern District. The complaint accuses Lululemon's "Be Planet" marketing campaign, which the company launched in October 2020, of being "misleading," and alleges the company "has taken advantage of . . . consumers and their trust through a massive, global 'greenwashing' campaign." Gyani seeks an injunction to end the Be Planet campaign, as well as financial awards for actual damages consumers sustained when purchasing Lululemon's products. The proposed classes include anyone in the United States who has purchased a non-resale product from the company since the Be Planet campaign launched and anyone who purchased a non-resale Lululemon product in Florida since the launch of the Be Planet campaign. The complaint outlines the severity of the climate crisis and the fashion and apparel industries' role in perpetuating it, highlighting the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, synthetic fibers and more. Those types of considerations, Gyani's counsel contends, have started to come into the spotlight, particularly where consumers' product consideration patterns are concerned. "Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the environment. They seek to avoid brands that sell products that contribute to climate change or the degradation of the planet, and they are willing to pay premium prices for products that are sustainably produced, environmentally friendly and positively restore the planet," the complaint says. "In other words, these issues are not only material to consumers' purchasing decisions, but they are a priority. Lululemon knows this and exploits it." The complaint notes that Lululemon's extensive, sustainability-focused marketing campaigns include copy like, "Our products and actions avoid environmental harm and contribute to restoring a healthy planet." But, Gyani alleges, Lululemon's practices, particularly around Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions and use of synthetic materials, don't align with messages like those. A spokesperson for Lululemon said the company stands by its statements. "We are aware of the recent lawsuit and are confident the statements we make to the public accurately reflect our impact goals and commitments," the spokesperson told Sourcing Journal via email. "Be Planet is not a marketing campaign. It is a pillar of our impact strategy, outlining the vision, goals and targets which guide our actions and investments. This includes 2030 climate targets and a 2050 net zero goal, both of which are externally validated (SBTi)." Emissions Gyani points to Lululemon's Scope 3 emissions reporting, as laid out in the company's annual impact reports, which shows that its Scope 3 emissions have more than doubled between 2020, when it launched the Be Planet campaign, and 2022. The company has not yet released its 2023 impact report. The complaint alleges Lululemon's Scope 3 emissions will only continue to grow as the company plots to up its revenue. "Lululemon's 2022 emissions are the equivalent of burning over 720 million liters of gasoline, over 3.8 million barrels of oil or the fueling of over 518,000 passenger vehicles for a year. To make matters worse, Lululemon's emissions are on track to continue to increase significantly as the company has a stated goal of doubling its 2021 revenue by 2026, which will mean increased apparel manufacturing through its supply chain, with a corresponding increase in the company's Scope 3 emissions," the complaint alleges. Gyani later points to Lululemon's purported penchant for transporting goods via air freight, noting that it ships a significantly higher proportion of the products manufactured by suppliers in Vietnam and Sri Lanka via air when compared to competitors like Nike, Adidas or Puma. "A company such as Lululemon that represents itself as taking actions which not only avoid harming the planet but actively contribute to a healthy planet would minimize the use of air freight to prioritize the health of the planet. However, when faced with supply chain difficulties, Lululemon chose to significantly increase its use of air freight, in disregard for the increased detrimental impacts on the environment," the complaint says. The Lululemon spokesperson said the company has made some progress toward its emissions goals but still has a ways to go. "We have achieved a 60 percent absolute reduction of greenhouse emissions in our owned and operated facilities but recognize most of our climate impact comes from emissions of our broader supply chain," they said. "We are taking direct action and are committed to collaborating with industry partners to help address supply chain impacts on climate change. We welcome dialogue and remain focused on driving progress. This work is far from complete." Synthetic fibers Though Gyani's concerns about emissions make up a large part of the argument that Lululemon's marketing and advertising is deceptive, the complaint also dives into Lululemon's use of synthetics -- particularly polyester and nylon. According to the complaint, synthetics account for about 60 percent of Lululemon's material mix. According to its 2022 impact report, Lululemon is working toward transitioning 100 percent of its fibers to what it calls "preferred materials." It uses Textile Exchange's definition of a preferred material to define that term: "one which results in improved environmental and/or social sustainability outcomes and impacts compared to conventional production." But, Gyani contends, synthetics like polyester and nylon are almost never truly sustainable because they can shed microplastics and because the creation of virgin polyester and nylon requires the use of fossil fuels. "While Lululemon claims that it is converting to recycled polyester and nylon in its products, experts do not consider these products to be a truly sustainable alternative as they are energy intensive to manufacture, do not biodegrade and still release microplastics," the complaint argues. Resale The complaint also goes after the validity of claims Lululemon makes about its Like New program, which allows consumers to trade used merchandise for a Lululemon gift card. The company cleans the products consumers turn in, then lists them on the resale section of its site at lower prices than new items. According to the complaint, the athletic wear company's website at one time read, "What's better than great finds on gently used Lululemon gear? Knowing you're helping restore a healthier planet." Gyani, though, argues that even that statement is false and that the impact of such a resale program is far overblown, alleging that Lululemon uses the "relatively minor harm reduction benefits of this program to repeat and emphasize the false message that [it] is 'helping restore a healthier planet.'" The program, Gyani contends, "is not well designed to achieve its stated goals" since the company "requires products to be returned in 'like new' condition, and gift cards given in exchange for 'like new products can only be used on new items." "In other words, while potentially promoting the use of some clothes for longer periods of time, the program is also promoting increased consumption of new clothes," the complaint argues. Gyani isn't the only one with questions about the validity of Lululemon's sustainability-based claims. Stand.earth filed a complaint with the Canadian government earlier this year, making similar allegations to Gyani's. In May, Canada's Competition Bureau opened a formal investigation into the company's marketing practices based on Stand.earth's complaint, though the agency has not yet announced the results of that investigation. [GN] LVNV FUNDING: Hertz Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN HERTZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVNV FUNDING LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-07617-GC-TJB (D.N.J., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On or about April 1, 2024, in its efforts to collect the Debt, Defendant filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the sum of $23,687.49. The subject lawsuit was filed in Ocean County, with Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff resided in Ocean County, and that jurisdiction was appropriate in Ocean County, New Jersey. However, Plaintiff lives in New York, and not New Jersey, says the suit. The complaint asserts that the Defendant attempted to collect a debt belonging to the Plaintiff by initiating a lawsuit in New Jersey, which has a six-year statute of limitations for the collection of such debts, regardless of the accuracy of service of process, jurisdiction, or the damage it could cause by serving an address where the consumer does not reside. LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt collector based in Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I Harrison, Esq. 478 Albany Ave, Ste # 34 Brooklyn, NY 11203 Telephone: (203) 444-3551 E-mail: JosephHarrisonEsq@Gmail.com LYNDON SOUTHERN: Bellaire Multifamily Alleges Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- BELLAIRE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LYNDON SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY; THE FORTEGRA GROUP, INC.; RESPONSE INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTH; BLUE RIDGE INDEMNITY COMPANY; and LOTSOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-80820-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2024), accuses the Defendants of breaching contract and seeks a declaration that a "Covered Event" is not a requirement or condition precedent to the payment of claims under the Policies. Allegedly, Defendants have failed and refused to process and pay claims filed without documentation of the initiation of eviction proceedings or a written agreement between policyholders and their tenants terminating their respective leases, in breach of the Policies. Lyndon Southern Insurance Company is an insurance company based in Jacksonville, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan E. Freidin, Esq. Sarah Glasser, Esq. FREIDIN BROWN, P.A. 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 371-3666 E-mail: jf@freidinbrown.com SG@freidinbrown.com - and - Barry Himmelstein, Esq. HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK 2000 Powell St., Suite 1605 Emeryville, CA 94608-1861 Telephone: (510) 450-0782 E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Triangle T v. BoA Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Triangle T Partners, LLC v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05260 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order resolving outstanding scheduling disputes in light of the Court's orders granting preliminary approval to the settlement agreements that would resolve the class actions in this proceeding: 1. The Class Plaintiffs' letter motion for leave to file a motion for certification of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class is denied as moot and without prejudice to renewal in the event that the class settlements are not finally approved. 2. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order bifurcating the trial between a liability phase and a damages phase is denied without prejudice to renewal. The Court concludes that it is premature at this stage to decide whether an ultimate trial should be bifurcated. The issue of bifurcation may be revisited following the completion of expert discovery and the resolution of summary judgment and Daubert motions. 3. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order staying expert discovery on damages pending the disposition of trial on liability is denied. The interest of efficiency would not be served by postponing expert discovery on damages until after a full round of summary judgment and Daubert briefing on liability, particularly given that there is likely to be some degree of overlap in evidence and testimony regarding liability and damages. Accordingly, with respect to the Platform Plaintiffs that is, in Case Numbers 16-CV-3542, 16-CV-2858, and 18-CV-5361—the deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification shall be calculated from the date of this order. Thus, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than eight and one-half (8.5) months from the date of this order, and the Platform Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the date of this order. The Triangle T Suit is incorporated in INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL 2704. A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bc560H at no extra charge.[CC] MILWAUKEE, WI: MPS Recall Group May File Suit for Unfair Activities ------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Yount, writing for The Center Square, reports that the group driving the Milwaukee school board recall is now looking to file a class-action lawsuit. The MPS School Board Recall Collaborative said it has filed formal complaints against the city's school board with the Wisconsin Board of Ethics, the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, and the U.S. Department of Education against Milwaukee's elected school board members. The group is alleging "malfeasance, illegal and unethical activities that cannot be denied by any of the Board members." "Our community is enraged, fed up, and more organized than ever before. We are standing united against the systemic corruption, illegal, and unethical practices that have plagued the Milwaukee Board of School Directors," the Collaborative said in a statement. "This latest action is in response to their continued and blatant disregard shown to city of Milwaukee residents displaying their continued lack of honesty, integrity, accountability and transparency." The Recall Collaborative is targeting four MPS school board members, Marva Herndon, Jilly Gokalgandhi, Missy Zombor and Erika Siemsen, and is accusing them of ignoring MPS' dire financial conditions and hiding those facts from parents. "We are not only demanding an investigation [into the four] for abusing their board powers and failing to lead with integrity, but we are taking matters into our own hands and seeing to it that these Board Members be held accountable for dishonoring their oath and pledge to the city of Milwaukee residents," the collaborative added. The key accusations, according to the group include: -- Withholding crucial and public information about the health and safety of MPS buildings, specifically concealing an audit report detailing the presence of unhealthy and hazardous substances found in MPS school buildings; substances that causes cognitive disabilities, various forms of respiratory problems and other diseases and cancers. -- Failure to recuse themselves from key budget and policy decisions despite their being undeniable conflicts of interest due to being romantically involved with key district leaders and having familial ties with other beneficiaries who are employed with the district. -- Ignoring the illegal and unethical activities of the former superintendent and his administration, including irrefutable claims of theft, nepotism, harassment, retaliation, and misappropriating funds. -- Abusing their powers and positions to support the recruitment efforts of specific collective bargaining units under duress, even leading to the mistreatment, retaliation, and wrongful terminations of some who didn't conform. The Recall Collaborative has been pushing to unseat the four MPS school board members since news broke in early June of late and/or missing state financial reports. That led to the resignation of former Superintendent Keith Posley. But the Collaborative has yet to submit its recall signatures, and it's unclear at this point if they have collected any, or whether a recall election may even happen. [GN] MONGODB INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB) 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/mongodb-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=90834&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 MongoDB, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August 31, 2023 and May 30, 2024. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on March 7, 2024, MongoDB reported strong Q4 2024 results and then announced lower than expected full-year guidance for 2025. MongoDB attributed it to the Company's change in its "sales incentive structure" which led to a decrease in revenue related to "unused commitments and multi-year licensing deals." Following this news, MongoDB's stock price fell by $28.59 per share to close at $383.42 per share. Later, on May 30, 2024, MongoDB further lowered its guidance for the full year 2025 attributing it to "macro impacting consumption growth." Analysts commenting on the reduced guidance questioned if changes made to the Company's marketing strategy "led to change in customer behavior and usage patterns." Following this news, MongoDB's stock price fell by $73.94 per share to close at $236.06 per share. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in MongoDB stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/mongodb-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=90834&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] NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces Lewis Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-008400 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 15, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Bergdorf Goodman and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Neiman Marcus Group designs and manufactures apparel and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Calderon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL ANGEL CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. and PATRICK CLARKE, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:24-cv-05442 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay owed to him pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The suit contends that the Plaintiffs were only paid for time spent working at the job sites and were not compensated at all for time spent working at the Network Infrastructure yards, participating in mandatory weekly safety meetings, or for time spent traveling to and from the yard to the different job sites. Thus, Plaintiffs were consistently paid for fewer hours than they actually worked, many of which were hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, for which they should have been paid overtime premiums. For weeks in which he worked a total of fewer than 40 hours, Plaintiff also brings a claim for unpaid "gap-time" wages, pursuant to the NYLL. The Plaintiff typically worked five (5) days per week, for a total of 60 hours per week, and sometimes more. Approximately twice per month, he was also required to work another eight (8) hours on Saturdays. The Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of the Defendants and his NYLL claims on behalf of himself and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class of all laborers, laborer-drivers, operators, mechanics, and all other workers performing manual construction labor, with the exception of foreman, for Network Infrastructure in New York during the six (6) year period preceding the filing of this complaint, plus 228-day COVID-19 tolling period instituted by the Governor of New York in several Executive Orders between March and October 2020. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a construction worker and laborer-driver from April 2022 through late October 2022. Network Infrastructure is a utility contracting company that specializes in utility asset management and contracting mainly in the gas, electrical, water, sewer, and telecommunication industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: www.peltongraham.com NISSAN CANADA: Court Approves $1.82-Mil. Data Hack Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Guillaume Rivard, writing for The Car Guide, reports that the Superior Court of Quebec has approved Nissan Canada's proposal of $1.82 million to settle a class action that followed a data hack in December 2017. An anonymous individual allegedly stole personal data on an unspecified number of Nissan customers and demanded a ransom be paid to return the data, including names, addresses, credit scores, vehicle models, loans details and monthly payments. Two class actions were filed in 2018, one in Quebec and another in Ontario, claiming this data incident caused customers to incur monetary damages. Nissan has always denied any liability, and no court has concluded to any wrongdoing by Nissan. Still, the automaker later agreed to provide a settlement fund of $1,820,000 to pay the successful claims of class action members in both provinces. Under the terms of the settlement, customers who can document damages incurred as a result of the data incident are eligible for the reimbursement of such damages up to $2,500. For undocumented claims, the maximum amount is $35. In order to qualify as a class action member, customers must have had an active lease or loan with Nissan Canada between December 22, 2016 and January 12, 2017, or have received a letter from Nissan around January 2018 informing them about their data potentially being violated. Claims will be accepted by RicePoint Administration until October 21, 2024, either through mail or online at www.nissandatasettlement.com. [GN] NORDIC NATURALS: Clark Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- DAYNA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-04058 (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2024) arises from Defendant's misrepresentation of Nordic Naturals brand fish oil capsules by omitting crucial information from its label and failing to disclose that fish oil supplements may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation and harm heart health. The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of express warranty, quasi-contract, negligent misrepresentation and omission, intentional misrepresentation and omission, and for violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered Watsonville, CA, Nordic Naturals, Inc. is a California corporation that manufactures and sells vitamins and supplements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: Erick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents Opt Out of Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Funk, writing for ABC News, reports that few people ultimately opted out of the $600 million class action settlement Norfolk Southern offered to people affected by last year's disastrous East Palestine train derailment despite the questions residents raised about the deal, lawyers said. The plaintiffs' attorneys said only 22 of the nearly 2,000 households in the small Ohio town where the derailment happened in February 2023 opted out of the deal before the July 1 deadline. In total, only 173 of the more than 190,000 households in the 20-mile (32.2-kilometer) area around the derailment covered by the deal had decided not to accept it as of July 15 filing. The train crash spilled an assortment of hazardous chemicals from tank cars that ruptured, and days after the derailment, officials decided to blow open five tank cars and burn the vinyl chloride inside because they worried the cars might explode. The National Transportation Safety Board has said that vent and burn procedure was likely unnecessary but the officials who made that call didn't have all the information they needed. A federal judge has given the deal preliminary approval, but a hearing will be held in late September to determine if the deal should go through. Separately, Norfolk Southern agreed to pay a $15 million fine and make changes to its operation as part of a federal settlement. The lawyers said in a statement that "the community's response to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive" and thousands of claims have already been submitted. Residents had a chance to hear the NTSB discuss the reasons why the train derailed and the communication failures afterward at the board's June 25 hearing, but the agency didn't release its final report -- nearly two weeks after people who live near East Palestine had to decide whether to accept the settlement. And the lawyers haven't yet filed the detailed test results and other evidence they gathered as part of the lawsuit. Some residents might receive little or nothing from the settlement because the final amount they get will be reduced by how much assistance they took from Norfolk Southern since the derailment. Even households near the derailment that are supposed to get roughly $70,000 could wind up with nothing if the railroad put them up in pricey hotels or rental homes for months. One of the leading critics of the deal, Jami Wallace, said people like her who lost their homes and experienced illnesses after the derailment shouldn't be denied compensation. "Getting nothing for suffering and intentional poisoning is not fair or adequate,” Wallace said in her formal objection. Norfolk Southern provided more than $21 million in direct assistance to families who had to temporarily relocate after the derailment. The lawyers who negotiated the deal with the railroad have said that kind of offset procedure is customary in any lawsuit, so residents would likely face that even if they pursued their own lawsuits against Norfolk Southern. The amount people are supposed to receive from the settlement also varies based on how close they lived to the derailment and how it affected them. Documents filed in court suggests that a family living within 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the derailment might receive $70,000 for property damage. Someone who lived farther away will get considerably less -- maybe only $250 for families more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) away. The lawyers have said some people could receive more than those estimated amounts after a claims administrator reviews all the individual factors. Resident Tamara Lynn Freeze said in a handwritten note to the judge that it's unfair to make her decide whether to accept the settlement before she even knows exactly how much she might receive from it. The settlement offers payments of $10,000 for injuries, but accepting that would mean that residents won't be able to sue the railroad down the road if they develop cancer or other serious health conditions. They don't have to accept the personal injury payment to get the money for property damage. Many people are still reporting respiratory problems, unexplained rashes and other symptoms more than a year after the derailment while others have no health complaints. And residents worry about the potential long-term health implications of all the chemicals they have been exposed to. The court wouldn't allow the settlement to include anything for potential future health costs because those aren't known yet, the lawyers say. The plaintiffs' attorneys are expected to share up to $162 million in legal fees out of the settlement if the judge approves. [GN] ONE FRANKLINE: Cheli Sues Over Architectural Barriers to Disabled ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual, vs. ONE FRANKLINE CENTER, L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-07855 (D.N.J., July 18, 2024) sues the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, as prohibited by the ADA, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff has visited the Property on many occasions over the last several decades; her last visit occurred on April 13, 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 suit alleges. Ms. Cheli has personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered her safety at the Property. She has complained to the staff on several occasions about the lack of accessible parking, the danger of the parking lot, and the lack of accessible to the restrooms, the suit adds. Ms. Cheli, is an individual with disabilities - as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. Ms. Cheli has been diagnosed with facioscapulohumeral musculadystrophy and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of her major life activities including not being able to walk, stand, reach, or lift. The Defendant operates a restaurant known as the Franklinville Inn.[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 PAYONEER INC: Fails to Safeguard Users' Accounts, Alliaud Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA ANGELA ALLIAUD, RODRIGO ARMANDO EMBEITA, JUAN JOSE ESQUIVEL, ANDRES SANCHEZ IBARRA, IGNACIO ROQUE LUCERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAYONEER, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05378-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) contends that Payoneer misrepresented its security measures and failed to safeguard users' accounts from unauthorized access, resulting in significant financial losses for many of its customers when criminals misappropriated their account. The Plaintiffs and other Payoneer customers pay Payoneer a fee for each transaction they make on its platform. They also receive Mastercard debit cards consistent with what customers would expect from any bank to access their funds held at Payoneer. When customers use the debit cards to withdraw money from ATMs, they pay another fee to Payoneer. Despite Payoneer's representations and purported security features, over the course of only a few days between January 12, 2024 and January 15, 2024, and often after only a few minutes, over 100 Payoneer customers in Argentina, including the Plaintiffs, received unsolicited SMS messages with Codes from Payoneer requesting that they change their passwords; notifications that their passwords had been changed without their knowledge and authorization; and notifications that payments had been made from their Accounts to other Payoneer Accounts. In none of these cases did Payoneer's customers request these password changes or payment transfers, the lawsuit alleges. As a result, the Plaintiffs and other Payoneer customers suddenly lost access to their Accounts, and by the time they realized this and were able to re-set their passwords, they learned that their Accounts had been emptied of funds ranging from $5,000 to over $60,000. Not only did Payoneer cause the Plaintiffs and Class members to lose money and allow cybercriminals to access customers' personal and financial information, Payoneer's failures continue to put them at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk and, additionally, caused costs and expenses to them attributable to responding to, identifying, and correcting damages that were reasonably foreseeable as a result of Payoneer's willful and negligent conduct, the Plaintiffs add. Ms. Alliaud is a citizen of Argentina. She decided to sign up for Payoneer in 2018, and began using it in 2020 in order to have a U.S. dollar account to keep her funds safe and avoid the extreme fluctuations and high inflation in Argentina's economy. On January 11, 12 and January 13, 2024, Alliaud received several unsolicited SMS messages and Codes from Payoneer on her phone. Payoneer is a financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica J. Sleater, Esq. Ralph N. Sianni, Esq. ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC 64 Laurel Mountain Ct. Carmel, NY 10512 Telephone: (314) 775-4414 E-mail: Jessica@andersensleater.com rsianni@andersensleater.com - and - Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com - and - Ariel Berschadsky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARIEL BERSCHADSKY 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 372-3322 E-mail: ab@berschadsky.com PENNYMAC LOAN: Cyrus Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices -------------------------------------------------------- James Cyrus, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01145 (D. Conn., July 3, 2024) is a class action brought by Plaintiff and other military veterans who had their Veteran Affairs-backed mortgages serviced by PennyMac. The Plaintiff and the putative class members entered into COVID-19 Forbearance Plans concerning their mortgages based on a false and deceptive promise by PennyMac that a deferred payment program would be available to them when their forbearance plans ended. However, Defendant stopped accepting applications for the deferred payment program without notifying Plaintiff and the putative class. Ultimately, Defendant's deceptive behavior and unfair dealing forced Plaintiff and the other veteran class members into damaging mortgage loan modifications with materially higher interest rates, late charges, unnecessary closing costs and fees, and much higher monthly payments. Indeed, in addition to the illegal late charges and closing costs, the Plaintiff's mortgage payments increased by approximately $550 per month from his unlawfully obtained mortgage loan modification, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cyrus now asserts claims for breach of contract including the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and for violations of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC is national mortgage lender and servicer based in West Lake Village, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 100019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com PRIMARY KIDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PRIMARY KIDS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05342 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.primary.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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals—thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, the lawsuit contends. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on June 3, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a long sleeved slim tee and a short sleeved slim tee as gifts and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff allegedly encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Murphy is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. He is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Primary offers clothing and apparel for children and adults, accessories, bedding, and uniforms.[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 PROGRESSIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ULTIMO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00339-SH (N.D. Okla., July 17, 2024) is a collective action complaint seeking to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant suffered or permitted the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective to regularly work off-the-clock without pay, and manipulated times entries to avoid paying wages, including overtime. The Defendant has also suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective to regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime pay. The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective performed no job duties or functions that qualified for any FLSA overtime exemption, the lawsuit adds. Typically, the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were scheduled to work either 10 or 8-hour daily shifts. The Plaintiff Ultimo was paid $35.00 per hour. Mr. Ultimo was employed by the Defendant from Oct. 25, 2023 to June 21, 2024 as an hourly site supervisor and was assigned to the Defendant's site in Pryor, Oklahoma. The Defendant "is a full service communications and low voltage cabling contractor servicing customers nation-wide."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com PROVIDENCE, RI: Reaches Settlement in 360 High School Closure Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alexander Castro, writing for Rhode Island Current, reports that a legal saga over the now-shuttered 360 High School in Providence has reached a settlement in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island. Litigation couldn't stop the loss of 360 High School as a distinct entity, but aspects of the school's environment will continue in a newly unified school in the same building, thanks to a settlement finalized Thursday, July 18, by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. The two student bodies sharing the Thurbers Avenue school complex -- the Juanita Sanchez Educational Complex and the former 360 students -- can even work together to decide on a name for their newly combined school. (The settlement clarifies, however, that only the Providence City Council can change the name of the actual school building, which is technically William B. Cooley High School.) "We're hoping that we've moved the situation closer to a merger," said Jennifer Wood, executive director of Rhode Island Center for Justice and an attorney who represented the families of 360 High School students "It speaks volumes that the settlement agreement refers to it as a unified school. The students in the fall will have an opportunity, both student bodies coming together, to determine whether and what they would like to name their school going forward. That's just one rather symbolic gesture, but rather important to us." Unemployed teachers who worked at 360 High School in the 2023-2024 school year will have the opportunity to reapply for a position at the unified school, according to the settlement. The Rhode Island Department of Education, Providence Public School District and the plaintiffs together announced Wednesday evening that they had mutually reached the agreement. "The Rhode Island Department of Education and Providence Public Schools will continue to work closely with students, families, staff, and community partners to foster a school community at the new, unified school, that promotes academic excellence and offers a welcoming and supportive learning environment where all students can thrive," Wednesday's joint announcement stated. In April, four 360 High School parents filed the class action suit, Mezon v. Providence Public School Department. The parents and their children all speak Spanish, so the suit alleged that the high school's impending closure -- announced to the surprise of students and families in February -- would violate federal access laws for the school's many multilingual learners, which comprised more than half the student body. "I am glad that we were able to have our voices heard. I will stay actively involved in my son's education at the unified school," said Ysaura Mezon, the lead plaintiff, in a statement. Providence public schools are under state control, and education officials from both the state and the school district called the closure a merger, since 360 would be fused into the Juanita Sanchez Educational Complex in the same building on Thurbers Avenue. Originally, the merged school was going to be called the Juanita Sanchez Life Sciences Institute. The federal Every Student Succeeds Act can push underperforming public schools into a process known as redesign, in which a school can be closed, made into a charter or private school, or see fundamental changes to its structure. Juanita Sanchez was already engaged in a redesign process approved by the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education in July 2023. The settlement ensures the unified school will be consistent with that makeover while preserving certain elements that 360 High School parents and students appreciated. The settlement, Wood said, "is really a statement of priorities. . . that are most valuable or precious [students and families], that they were hoping to be continued and protected in a unified school." City and state education officials maintain they did not violate any of the plaintiffs' rights under the agreement. "We have every reason to believe that all these commitments have been made in good faith, and then everything will be completely fulfilled and implemented," Wood said. "And having a blueprint for that is really great." Some amenities provided by the settlement's "blueprint" include: -- Thirty minutes of student advisory time every other school day, on topics like team building, advising and post-graduation plans. -- An emphasis on restorative justice practices, which were highlighted in 360 High School's institutional structure and are meant to maintain a safe school environment as well as teach conflict resolution skills. -- An individual learning plan for each student that meets state and New England Association of Schools and Colleges standards. -- Interpretation and translation services for students and their families -- a major sticking point in the original suit. "Certainly, there are students and their families who are very sad that the school as they knew it in the past will no longer be open next year." Wood said. "In a perfect world, their desired outcome was to remain at 360 High School next year, with the administrators, faculty and staff that they're familiar with since they entered the school." But with the lawsuit filed only months before the end of the school year, Wood acknowledged time was a constraint. "Federal litigation does not move that fast," Wood said, and as summer vacation was about to begin, both parties agreed to ask the court if mediation would be an option. The ensuing conversations were "very productive," Wood said, and she was grateful that the court helped both defendants and plaintiffs "come to a resolution that wasn't exactly what any party wanted, honestly." "But that's how settlements are developed, is that there's compromise and you decide on what the key priorities are," Wood said. [GN] PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Smith Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Mckayla Smith, on behalf of herself, her minor child JOHN DOE, and all others similarly situated v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:24-cv-07598 (D.N.J., July 8, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former customers (and their beneficiaries). But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former customers' (and their beneficiaries') PII/PHI. On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former customers' (and their beneficiaries') private information was exactly that private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. The Defendant is a financial services corporation based in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PRUITT HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over 2023 Ransomware Attack ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Adler, writing for The HIPAA Journal, reports that Pruitt Health is facing a class action lawsuit over a 2023 ransomware attack that exposed the protected health information of 56,405 patients. Pruitt Health, the operator of 180 care centers in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, suffered a ransomware attack on November 2023 that exposed patient data. The NoEscape ransomware group claimed responsibility for the attack and said 1.5TB of data was stolen. The stolen data was uploaded to its data leak site in December 2023; however, the data leak site was taken down before Pruitt Health was able to confirm exactly what data had been stolen. Pruitt Health concluded that the types of data likely stolen in the attack included patient names, contact information, demographic information, dates of birth, government identification information, Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, health insurance information, and health information. Pruitt Health notified all individuals potentially affected by the attack in May 2024. A class action lawsuit -- Tina Clayton v. PruittHealth Inc. -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by former Pruitt Health employee Tina Clayton, whose personal information was potentially exposed as a result of the attack. Clayton alleges that the attack was made possible due to the negligence of Pruitt Health, which failed to implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to employee and patient data. Clayton alleges Pruitt Health used computers that were out of date, did not provide employees with training on email security and password protection, and had not developed and implemented procedures for dealing with ransomware attacks. The lawsuit also takes issue with the length of time it took Pruitt Health to notify the affected individuals. Notification letters were not mailed until 6 months after the attack occurred. Clayton said she can't be sure whether her data was exposed in the attack; however, was notified about the potential exposure and has had to spend a significant amount of time protecting herself against the misuse of her sensitive data. Since the attack, Clayton claims to have spent around an hour a week monitoring her accounts for fraud and data misuse. The lawsuit claims Clayton and the class members have suffered injuries as a result of the data breach and now face an imminent and heightened risk of identity theft, medical fraud, and other harms. The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment and seeks class action certification, a jury trial, damages, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The plaintiff and class are represented by Ainsworth G. Dudley of Dudley Law LLC and Jarrett L. Ellzey and Leigh Montgomery of Ellzey & Associates PLLC. [GN] PRUITTHEALTH INC: Clayton Sues Over Data Security Failures ---------------------------------------------------------- TINA CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. PRUITTHEALTH, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02960-TWT (N.D. Ga., July 3, 2024) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant. The private information compromised in PruittHealth's data breach included but is not limited to full or partial name, date of birth, government identification information, demographic information, contact information, home address, financial information including, Social security numbers, bank account number, health insurance information, and health information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Plaintiff sue Defendant seeking redress for their unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; (v) unjust enrichment; and (vi) declaratory judgment. Based in Norcross, GA, PruittHealth provides medical services for residents of many states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq. DUDLEY LAW, LLC P.O. Box 53319 Atlanta, GA 30355 Telephone: (404) 687-8205 E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jarett@ellzeyaw.com leigh@ellseylaw.com READY PLAYER ME: Crawley Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michael Crawley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ready Player Me, Inc., Wolfprint 3D Inc., Case No. 2024CH00873 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05995 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Ready Player Me -- https://readyplayer.me/ -- develops a cross-game avatar platform for the metaverse.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Debra Rae Bernard, Esq. John Mylan Traylor, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 324-8559 Email: dbernard@perkinscoie.com MTraylor@perkinscoie.com READY PLAYER ME: Planos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rick Planos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ready Player Me, Inc., Wolfprint 3D Inc., Case No. 2024CH00872 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06048 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Ready Player Me -- https://readyplayer.me/ -- develops a cross-game avatar platform for the metaverse.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew David Provance, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8598 Email: mprovance@mayerbrown.com RICOR ENTERPRISES: Faces Brito Suit Over Alleged ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. RICOR ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a EL PUB RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22542-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2024), is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff says he encountered architectural barriers at Defendant's commercial property and restaurant business. He added that barriers have each denied or diminished his ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. Headquartered in Miami, FL, Ricor Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a commercial restaurant at 1548 SW 8th Street Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: $9-Mil. Referral Class Settlement Gets Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Godfey Benjamin, writing for Coinspeaker, reports that the settlement is coming after two years of litigation and extensive negotiations. Financial service provider RobinhoodMarkets Inc (NASDAQ: HOOD) has received approval from a United States federal judge for its $9 million settlement in a class action lawsuit. In a motion that was filed on July 17, Robinhood was accused of sending unsolicited text messages to thousands of Washington residents as part of a "refer-a-friend" program. Robinhood Lawsuit Hinges on Consumer Protection Violation The plaintiffs in the class action are Cooper Moore and Andrew Gillette. Both entities stated that by sending promotional text messages without the recipient's consent, the crypto and stock brokerage platform's referral program violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Judge Barbara Rothstein of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington agreed with the plaintiff's motion that Robinhood's action violated the state's consumer protection laws. She also claimed that the terms of the settlement were "reasonable and adequate in light of the complexity, expense, and duration of the litigation." It is worth noting that this settlement is coming after two years of litigation and extensive negotiations. Approximately 827,327 consumers allegedly received the text messages on a Washington area code telephone number. All these people, except those who consented to receiving the text messages, were included in the class action. So far, the notice plan that was approved by the court has reached 96% of the identified settlement class members, and over 51,000 claims have been submitted. Based on the number of validated claims, each participant is likely to receive between $111 and $170. Moore and Gillette are to receive $10,000 each in service payments for the role they played in the case. While their counsel is asking for $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and $142,400 in litigation expenses. All these fees sum up to the $9 million settlement. Robinhood Faces Regulatory Hurdles For context, Robinhood's referral program is designed to allow existing users to invite their contacts to join the program. They achieve this by sending referral text messages to each of them. There is usually a referral link attached which the recipients could click to sign up. Once this is done, both the referrer and the new user will receive a reward in the form of free stock. This was Robinhood's strategy to expand its user base and improve engagement with the platform. Unfortunately, this did not settle well with Moore and Gillette, thereby, leading to the settlement request. This settlement comes only a few months after Robinhood received a Well Notice from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over its digital asset services. Precisely, the securities regulator noted that Robinhood violated federal securities laws. These include those outlined in Sections 15(a) and 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It mandates entities dealing with securities to register as brokers and clearing agencies. The notice drew criticism from Digital Chamber. It argued that the SEC's regulatory strategy for the blockchain ecosystem does not align with its investor protection mandate. [GN] ROMAN HEALTH: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- others similarly situated v. Roman Health Ventures Inc., Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV13894 was removed from the Superior Court - Los Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 5, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05674-ODW-JC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Roman Health Ventures Inc., doing business as Ro -- http://ro.co/ -- is an American telehealth company that diagnoses patients, and subsequently prescribes and delivers treatments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Matthew Jay Smith, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: robert@taulersmith.com matthew@taulersmith.com The Defendant is represented by: Jui-Ting Anna Hsia, Esq. ZWILLGEN LAW LLP 369 Pine Street Suite 506 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 590-2341 Fax: (415) 636-5965 Email: anna@zwillgen.com SAFE AUTO TRUCKING: Hsieh Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Auto Trucking LLC. The case is styled as James Hsieh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safe Auto Trucking LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05918 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Safe Auto Trucking -- https://safeautotrucking.com/ -- provide reliable car shipping for both individuals and companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SEASTAR MEDICAL: Wells Sues Over 4.84% Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- FORREST A K WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEASTAR MEDICAL HOLDING CORPORATION, ERIC SCHLORFF, and CARYL BARON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01873 (D. Colo., July 5, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of Plaintiff and all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired SeaStar securities between October 31, 2022 and March 26, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. SeaStar initially operated as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) under the name LMF Acquisition Opportunities, Inc. On April 22, 2022, the Company, then still operating as a SPAC, and SeaStar Medical, Inc. (Legacy SeaStar), a medical technology company developing extracorporeal therapies to reduce the consequences of excessive inflammation on vital organs, jointly announced that they had entered into a merger agreement. As contemplated under the Merger Agreement, the combined company would be known as "SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation" (Company) and would operate under the same management team as Legacy SeaStar, with all Legacy SeaStar shares owned by its existing equity holders to be converted into Class A Common Stock of the combined company. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SeaStar and/or Legacy SeaStar had deficient compliance controls and procedures related to the Humanitarian Device Exemption Application; (ii) accordingly, there were deficiencies with the HDE Application, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was unlikely to approve the HDE Application in its present form, and the Legacy SeaStar's Selective Cytopheretic Device's regulatory prospects were overstated; (iii) the Company 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; (vi) accordingly, SeaStar's post-Merger business and financial prospects were overstated; and (vii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, SeaStar's stock price fell approximately $0.04 per share, or 4.84%, to close at approximately $0.71 per share on March 27, 2024. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Seastar Medical Holding Corp., a medical device company, develops a platform therapy to reduce the consequences of hyperinflammation on vital organs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com SENDWELL INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Champion Due Jan. 20, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAMPION v. SENDWELL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01143 (D.D.C., Filed April 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order setting class certification filing date to Jan. 20, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Sendwell is a Michigan based digital marketing company founded in 1998. [CC] SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Turner Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY TURNER and TYLER CRUTCHFIELD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SHARI'S MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24-2-08712-1 was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 17, 2024. The Western Washington District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-05577 to the proceeding. The Complaint purports to seek relief from the Defendant related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110, requiring certain disclosures in job postings. Specifically, the Complaint seeks (1) damages for alleged violations of RCW 49.58.110, and (2) declaratory relief. Shari's Management operates a chain of full-service restaurants in the Pacific Northwest, offering a variety of meals and dining experiences.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com The Defendant is represented by: Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. Orchid A. Tosh, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-2308 Facsimile: (206) 682-7908 E-mail: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com otosh@fisherphillips.com SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Teel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sherwin Williams Company, et al. The case is styled as Bonnie Teel as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sherwin Williams Company, et al., Case No. 24CV013536 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 8, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sherwin-Williams Company -- https://www.sherwin-williams.com/ -- is an American company based in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] SIERRA PACIFIC HOME: Miguel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Pacific Home and Comfort, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony I. Miguel, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sierra Pacific Home and Comfort, Inc., et al., Case No. 24CV013536 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 9, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sierra Pacific Home & Comfort, Inc. -- https://www.sierrapacifichome.com/ -- is the trusted solar and HVAC company of Sacramento, California.[BN] SISTERS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bitz Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONNOR BITZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SISTERS RESTAURANT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00692 (W.D. Mich., July 3, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff all minimum wages owed while working for Defendant paid on a hybrid sub-minimum wage and tips basis. The Defendant employed Plaintiff from approximately July 2022 to December 2022. Allegedly, the Defendant violated FLSA by, among other things, failing to provide adequate notice of their payment of sub-minimum wages to servers, bartenders, and other properly tipped employees. The Defendant also required tipped employees to perform non-tipped side work unrelated to the tipped profession. Sister Restaurant, Inc. operates a restaurant known as Buddies Pub & Grill. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Armstrong Files Suit in D. Montana ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc. The case is styled as Jamila A. Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00058-JTJ (D. Mont., July 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Giangiulio Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GIANGIULIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00060-JTJ (D. Mont., July 18, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals, including Ticketmaster, LLC's customers, following a data breach on its systems beginning around mid-April 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. Snowflake, Inc. is a cloud computing–based data cloud company in Bozeman, Montana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq. WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC 303 W Mendenhall, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-1900 Facsimile: (406) 587-1901 Email: max@westernjusticelaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6486 Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60629 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Email: nlange@fklmlaw.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Wilkinson Files Suit in D. Montana ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc. The case is styled as John R. Wilkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00057-TJC (D. Mont., July 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Rathbun Files Suit in S.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southcoast Medical Group LLC. The case is styled as Tamara Rathbun, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Southcoast Medical Group LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00148-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., July 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. SouthCoast Medical Group -- https://www.southcoasthealth.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Savannah, Georgia that specializes in Family Medicine and Pediatrics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison Elizabeth McCarthy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALLIE MCCARTHY 1055 Prince Avenue, Ste. 2 Athens, GA 30606 Phone: (678) 637-3201 Email: attorneymccarthy@gmail.com SP PLUS CORPORATION: Zajac Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alexander Zajac, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2024CH05349 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06091. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that SPP "knowingly obtain[ed] statutorily protected personal information – including names and addresses – from the departments of motor vehicles (collectively 'DMV') throughout the country in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ('DPPA')."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melissa A. Siebert, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 123 N. Wacker Drive Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 474-7900 Email: msiebert@cozen.com - and - Hayley H. Ryan, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 397-0801 Email: hryan@cozen.com SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Schultz Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE, INC., and SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. GD-24-005855, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Division, on July 5, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00973-WSH to the proceeding. On or about May 28, 2024, Plaintiff Schultz filed this Complaint in the state court wherein he alleges claims under the Uniform Firearms Act. Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc. is an American outdoor sporting goods retailer which operates in 29 states across the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Todd C. Kinney, Esq. Carol A. Svolos, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 Facsimile: (402) 346-1148 E-mail: todd.kinney@kutakrock.com carol.svolos@kutakrock.com - and - Richik Sarkar, Esq. Sarah M. Hillman, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 1300 Six PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-5000 Facsimile: (412) 281-5055 E-mail: Richik.Sarkar@Dinsmore.com Sarah.Hillman@Dinsmore.com STADIUM ENTERPRISES: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alfred Trippett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stadium Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04730 (D.N.J., July 8, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.stadiumgoods.com (hereinafter "Stadiumgoods.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Stadiumgoods.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually- impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Stadium Enterprises' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Stadiumgoods.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Stadium Enterprises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com STITCH FIX: Court Junks RWDSU Suit ---------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION LOCAL 338 RETIREMENT FUND, et al., v. STITCH FIX, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-04893-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order granting motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Dismissal is with leave to amend. If they so choose, plaintiffs must file an amended complaint within 21 days of this Order. the Court says. The Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts creating a strong inference of scienter. The Court therefore dismisses plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim on this ground as well. Court-appointed lead plaintiffs (four pension and benefit funds) bring this class action securities lawsuit against Stitch Fix, Inc., Stitch Fix’s former CEO Elizabeth Spaulding, and Stitch Fix’s founder Katrina Lake. Defendants Stitch Fix, Spaulding, and Lake now move to dismiss the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs allege that Stitch Fix's former executives Spaulding and Lake made material misstatements and omissions about this new business line to the public. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the executives told investors that Direct Buy would be additive and complementary to Fix but knew from internal test results that Direct Buy would cannibalize the Fix business. Defendants now move to dismiss the lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that the statements made by Spaulding and Lake were false or misleading or that the defendants possessed the scienter required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Stitch Fix is a clothing company whose core product is "Fix," a box of five trial items curated by the company’s stylists that is mailed to customers. A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=syOmKb at no extra charge.[CC] STITCH INDUSTRIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. STITCH INDUSTRIES INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05343 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://joybird.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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals—thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, the Plaintiff avers. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on June 3, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Soto chair from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Murphy is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Stitch Industries operates the Joybird online interactive Website and physical showrooms across the United States. The website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's indoor and outdoor furniture and home decor.[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 STORM-TEK INC: Cantu Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Jose Cantu, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Storm-Tek Inc. and Heathe Storm, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02523 (S.D. Tex., July 3, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Cantu worked for Storm-Tek as a laborer from May 2023 until June 2024. He regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However, Defendants did not pay him an overtime premium for any of the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendants paid him the same set day rate for all the hours he worked each day, says the suit. Storm-Tek Inc. is a telecommunications contractor based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com STUDIO STYL II: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STUDIO STYL II OF AH, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05729 (D.N.J., July 8, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.studiostylco.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.studiostylco.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SWAP.COM INC: Faces Wurm Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. SWAP.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-008396 (Fla. Cir.,, 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 14, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Swap.Com and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Swap.Com, Inc. is an online thrift and consignment store offering pre-owned apparel and accessories for baby, kids, maternity, men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com SWEET RAINBOW: Zhunio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Julio Orlando Navira Marianela Zhunio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWEET RAINBOW DAY CARE INC. and KIDS CASTLE DAYCARE CORP. and MARIA VALLE and JOSE CARRILLOS, as individuals, Case No. 2:24-cv-04848 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately one and a half hours after the regular shift end time, approximately 2 days per week, when required by Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff NAVIRA MARIANELA ZHUNIO was regularly required to work approximately 52 to 55 hours per week from May 20, 2022 until May 2, 2024. Although Plaintiff worked approximately 52 to 55 hours or more hours per week from May 20, 2022 until May 2, 2024, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 20, 2022 until May 2, 2024. SWEET RAINBOW DAY CARE INC. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 TARGET CORPORATION: Panelli Suit Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alexander Panelli, individually, and all other similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-02748-SK was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01218-H-DEB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Other Contract. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Jay Salisbury, Esq. SALISBURY LEGAL CORP 656 Fifth Avenue, Suite R San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 241-2760 Fax: (619) 241-2760 - and - Craig Wallace Straub, Esq. Michael Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com - and - Mark Alan Redmond, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. REDMOND 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 770 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-8240 The Defendant is represented by: Pooja L. Shah, Esq. Michael J Duvall, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 243-6079 Email: pooja.l.shah@dentons.com michael.duvall@dentons.com - and - Grant Ankrom Michael Harriss DENTONS US LLP One Metropolitan Square 101 S. Hanley, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 259-5809 - and - Sarah E. Trevino DENTONS US LLP 303 Peachtree St NE, Suite 5300 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 527-4000 Fax: (404) 527-4198 TC HEARTLAND: Court Narrows Claims in Splenda Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PRESCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-04192-PCP (N.D. Cal.), Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs Steven Prescott, Richard Tilker, Samuel Garcia, and Rochelle Wilson allege that TC Heartland has engaged in consumer fraud by marketing Splenda to health-conscious consumers (including those with Type 2 diabetes) as a sugar alternative with health benefits, even though Splenda's primary ingredient sucralose has purportedly been shown to cause and worsen diabetes. TC Heartland moves to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the FDA's determination regarding the safety of sucralose and that plaintiffs rely upon a cherry-picked collection of studies that do not actually support their claim that sucralose is unsafe. Plaintiffs respond that their claims are not preempted because a recognition by the FDA that sucralose is generally safe does not give TC Heartland license to make specific health claims about sucralose's benefits for diabetics that are false or misleading. They argue that their state law claims targeted at the misleading labeling on Splenda products fall outside the scope of FDA preemption. Plaintiffs further argue that their state law claims cannot conflict with FDA regulations because they assert that TC Heartland's Splenda advertising violates those very regulations. They allege an underlying violation of 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.14(d)(2)(iii), which requires health claims to be "complete, truthful, and not misleading." The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the FDA regulations cited by TC Heartland do not preempt plaintiffs' state law claims. Plaintiffs allege that TC Heartland makes claims that go beyond the safety of sucralose by promoting its Splenda products as "suitable for people with diabetes" and appropriate for "diabetes care" because they "help manage blood sugar." Determining whether these health claims are misleading because they imply that the products improve diabetes will not conflict with the FDA's determination that sucralose is generally safe, the Court holds. Plaintiffs' claims predicated on deceptive labeling violations are not preempted for the additional reason that they mirror 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.14, which prohibits misleading health claims on food labels, the Court adds. Because the state law claims asserted here parallel the FDA's advertising regulations, they cannot be preempted on that basis, the Court concludes. TC Heartland also contends that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring this lawsuit because they do not contend that they were physically injured, that plaintiffs fail to adequately plead that the Splenda products' labeling is likely to mislead reasonable consumers, and that plaintiffs' request for a corrective advertising campaign by TC Heartland violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs respond that they have standing because they expressly allege in the complaint that they "would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for them if they had known that the Products' label claims were false and misleading." Contrary to TC Heartland's arguments, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they suffered an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III, the Court finds. They allege that, but for TC Heartland's purported misrepresentation that the Splenda products were healthy, they would not have purchased the products (at least at their current price), the Court states. However, the Court agrees with TC Heartland that plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief would violate the First Amendment. Compelling speech is generally prohibited by the First Amendment. While the restrictions on compelling commercial speech are looser, requiring such affirmative speech is only permitted if the speech contains "purely factual and uncontroversial information." According to the Court, in this case, the plethora of competing scientific studies on the safety or potential health benefits or risks of sucralose undermines plaintiffs' contention that any affirmative advertising regarding Splenda's risks could be merely factual and uncontroversial. The Court therefore grants TC Heartland's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' request for this form of injunctive relief. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2024 Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sbH0VC TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Waits Class Suit Over 23.6% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW WAITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TELADOC HEALTH, INC., JASON GOREVIC, and MALA MURTHY, Case No. 7:24-cv-05339 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teladoc stock between Nov. 3, 2022 and Feb. 20, 2024, inclusive, against Teladoc and certain of its officers and/or directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about the Company's profitability and plans to attain profitability. On Nov. 30, 2022, Teladoc's Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Mala Murthy, presented at the Piper Sandler Annual Healthcare Conference. There she discussed projections for BetterHelp's projected memberships and advertising spend for the coming year. She stated that, despite increased advertising spending for BetterHelp over the past few years, "we have talked about the ad spending about BetterHelp business moderating in 4Q, right?" She further described "a sequential pullback in ad spending." On Dec. 2, 2022, Piper Sandler analyst Jessica Tassan offered an optimistic view of BetterHelp's revenue, opining that BetterHelp could grow "36% globally in 2022" with "low 20% global BetterHelp growth y/y" in 2023. On Oct. 24, 2023, during after-market hours, Teladoc issued a press release announcing its Q3-2023 results. The Q3-2023 Earnings Release reported revenue of $660.24 million for the quarter, missing consensus estimates by $2.82 million. Further, in a related investor presentation released the same day, Teladoc revealed that its BetterHelp segment revenue had declined from $292 million in Q2-2023 to $286 million in Q3-2023. The same presentation also revealed that BetterHelp membership had declined from 476,000 paying users in Q2-2023 to 459,000 paying users in Q3-2023. Then, on Feb. 20, 2024, during after-market hours, Teladoc released its Q4- 2023 earnings press release and hosted its associated earnings call. During the Q4-2023 Earnings Call, the Defendant Gorevic conceded that "revenue and margins were below our expectations in the quarter as we saw lower yields on marketing spend." Investors reacted negatively to the news. Teladoc's stock price fell $4.85 per share, or 23.6%, from a closing price of $20.49 per share on Feb. 20, 2024 to a closing price of $15.64 per share on Feb. 21, 2024. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Teladoc stock during the Class Period, and suffered damages in connection with such transactions in Teladoc stock. Teladoc provides direct-to-consumer, online health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com TEMUAPP.ME: Faces New Class Action Over Illegal Telemarketing ------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Hall, writing for Yahoo! News, reports that Phyllis King's new class-action lawsuit against Temu alleges that the company mistook her do-not-call registry status for an invitation to share its dollar deals. King, a Delaware resident, filed the class action on July 3, alleging that despite her status on the federal do-not-call registry, Temu texted her directly four times in April. According to the complaint, "The text messages marketed [Temu's] 'deals,' such as items on sale for $1.99 or $1, and asked [King] to access links to [Temu's] website." King says she did not provide Temu with express, written consent to contact her, nor did she provide the company with her phone number. She also notes that she lacks interest in Temu's products. "At no point has [King] sought out or solicited information regarding [Temu's] products or services prior to receiving the telemarketing text messages at issue," the complaint reads. King alleges that for herself and those similarly situated, receiving texts or calls from Temu means that "their privacy has been violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance," going on to allege that the calls or texts "occupied [King's] and class members' telephone lines, used up their time and prevented them from receiving legitimate communications." A Temu spokesperson said the company handles consumers' interests with sensitivity. "Temu takes consumer protection seriously. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend our interests vigorously," the spokesperson said in an email to Sourcing Journal. King's counsel alleges that Temu's purported action violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TPCA) and said the class, which the team has proposed would include everyone in the U.S. who is listed on the do-not-call registry and has received two or more telemarketing calls or texts from Temu within a 12-month period. According to King, the proposed class members "likely number at least in the hundreds because of the en masse nature of telemarketing calls and text messages." King and her counsel seek both monetary damages and injunctive relief, which would prevent Temu from future telemarketing communications with those on the do-not-call registry. The complaint suggests that, based on two separate causes of action, each member of the proposed class should receive about $2,000 in damages for each call or text Temu allegedly made in violation of the TPCA. According to court records, Temu has not yet responded to King's complaint. The new lawsuit is far from the first consumer -- or government -- outcry over privacy violations by the ultra-low-price marketplace platform. Temu has been the defendant in an active class action alleging that it used "deceptive" and "unscrupulous" practices around consumers' data, in turn violating their privacy rights. It has also been investigated by South Korea's FTC for privacy violations and is being sued by the state of Arkansas for similar privacy-related issues. [GN] TERADATA CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Teradata Corporation ("Teradata" or the "Company") (NYSE: TDC) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Teradata investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 13, 2023 and February 12, 2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/teradata-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=90734&wire=3 TDC investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) under Teradata's expanded business model, which involved engagement with additional customer business units and decisionmakers, transactions with the Company's customers took longer to finalize; (ii) Teradata thus overstated its ability to close customer transactions within their intended timeframes under its expanded business model; (iii) Teradata failed to timely close several customer transactions that it had factored into its outlook for 2023 Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) growth; (iv) as a result, the Company was unlikely to meet its full year 2023 total and public cloud ARR expectations; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Teradata during the relevant time frame, you have until August 13, 2024 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our 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. 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 www.zlk.com [GN] TESLA INC: Changes Legal Teams for Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports that Elon Musk's electric vehicle company, Tesla, has made a significant change in its legal representation for a California antitrust class action lawsuit, according to court records. The firm has replaced its longtime law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore with attorneys from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. This change was finalized second week of July when Cravath stepped down from the case, Reuters reports. The class action lawsuit accuses Tesla of monopolizing the market for parts and service for its vehicles, leading consumers to pay inflated prices. Both Cravath, a New York-based firm renowned for its Wall Street deals and litigation, and Wilmer, a prominent Washington, D.C. firm, have a long history of representing Tesla and Elon Musk. The court filings did not disclose the reason behind the switch. Requests for comment from Tesla, Wilmer, and Cravath went unanswered. In June, a judge refused to dismiss the proposed class action brought by Tesla vehicle owners. Wilmer attorneys made their first court appearance for Tesla shortly afterward. On July 15, Tesla's new legal team reaffirmed their denial of the plaintiffs' claims in a new court filing. In addition to this class action, Musk is also represented by Cravath in Delaware litigation concerning his $56 billion compensation package from Tesla. In January, a judge invalidated Musk's "unfathomable" pay package, dealing a blow to the billionaire entrepreneur. Although Tesla shareholders voted to support Musk's pay in June, the vote did not resolve the Delaware case. Late last month, lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, another of Musk's preferred law firms, joined the defense team in the Delaware litigation. This team includes Alex Spiro, one of Musk's most prominent lawyers. [GN] TEXAS DISPOSAL: Schneeberger Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Todd Schneeberger, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00764 (W.D. Tex., July 8, 2024), is brought to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members regularly worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per week. TDS knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, TDS's regular practice including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members worked and recorded hours in excess of 40 (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock")--was (and is) to deduct a 30-minute meal-period from Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members' daily time even though they regularly performed compensable work (and continue to perform) "off the clock" through their respective meal-period breaks. The effect of TDS's practice was (and is) that all time worked by Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members was not (and is not) counted and paid – thus, TDS failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for all of their hours worked and resultingly failed to properly calculate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members' overtime under the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members did not and currently do not perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by TDS. TDS is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to a commercial, industrial, and residential customers in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com TIMBERLINE RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Mcewen Mining ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 is investigating Timberline Resources Corp. (OTC: TLRS), relating to its proposed merger with McEwen Mining, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Timberline Resources shareholders are expected to receive 0.01 shares of McEwen Mining common stock per share of Timberline stock they own. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 16, 2024. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/timberline-resources-corp/. 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] TJX COMPANIES: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The TJX Companies Inc. d/b/a Marshalls, Case No. 0:24-cv-02724 (D. Minn., July 16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Website (www.marshalls.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. By failing to provide its Website's content and services in a manner that is compatible with auxiliary aids, the Defendant has engaged, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, in illegal disability discrimination, as defined by Title III, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring the Defendant to make its Website accessible to the Plaintiff and the putative class; and requiring the Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that the Defendant's Website remains accessible in the future. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. TJX offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, pants, jeans, activewear, maternity, pajamas, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com TURING VIDEO INC: Trio Suit Transferred to D. Idaho --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sandra Trio, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Turing Video, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04409 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho on July 15, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-mc-00165-BLW to the proceeding. TURING -- https://turing.ai/ -- is a cloud-based video surveillance system with AI capabilities for real-time alerts, smart search by face, person attributes, and history.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik F. Stidham, Esq. Jennifer M. Jensen, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 800 W. Main Street, Suite 1750 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 342-5000 Fax: (208) 343-8869 Email: efstidham@hollandhart.com jmjensen@hollandhart.com UNITED 1 PROTECTION: Bush Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United 1 Protection Services, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Scott Bush, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United 1 Protection Services, LLC, Case No. 24STCV16903 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." United 1 Protection Services, LLC -- https://www.united1ps.com/ -- provide security services that help you feel safe in various settings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ginzburg Daniel, Esq. 13428 Maxella Ave, # 984 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-5620 Phone: 424-251-8405 UNITED AIRLINES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Sambrano to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled David Sambrano, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Airlines, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-1074, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The suit is brought to remedy the Defendant's pattern of discrimination against employees who requested religious or medical accommodations from its mandate that its employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The Plaintiffs say United Airlines violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") by refusing to provide reasonable medical and religious accommodations. On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Jan. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 18, 2023 Opinion and Order. On June 21, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court held that the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) Class and the Rule 23(b)(3) Masking-and-Testing Subclass do not satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements under Rule 23(a), nor do they meet the criteria under Rule 23(b). The different injuries suffered and the individual questions raised within these proposed classes preclude class-wide resolution of their claims. However, the Court concluded that the Rule 23(b)(3) Unpaid Leave Subclass's Title VII claims meet the criteria for certification. Accordingly, the Court appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel with Ms. Kincannon as the named plaintiff and modified the Plaintiffs' proposed Unpaid Leave Subclass to encompass only the Title VII claims. The Court certified a class consisting of all employees United deemed customer-facing who received an accommodation due to a sincerely held religious beliefs and who were put on unpaid leave. The appellate case is captioned David Sambrano v. United Airlines, Case No. 24-90016, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 8, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Petitioners DAVID SAMBRANO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Esq. Brian Field, Esq. Mark R. Paoletta, Esq. Gene C. Schaerr, Esq. SCHAERR JAFFE, L.L.P. 1717 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 787-1060 (202) 494-6393 - and - Joshua James Prince, Esq. 380 S. 3rd, W. Rigby, ID 83442 Telephone: (702) 610-3886 - and - John Clay Sullivan, Esq. SL LAW, P.L.L.C. 610 Uptown Boulevard Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 - and - Robert C. Wiegand, Esq. STEWART WIEGAND & OWENS, P.C. 325 N. Saint Paul Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 899-9801 Defendant-Petitioner UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED is represented by: Russell Daniel Cawyer, Esq. KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, L.L.P. 201 Main Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 878-3562 - and - Alexander Virgil Maugeri, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3880 - and - Hashim M. Mooppan, Esq. Donald James Munro, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3744 (202) 879-3939 - and - Esteban Shardonofsky, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, L.L.P. 700 Milam Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 225-2300 UNITED COAL COMPANY: Wolford Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Wolford and Kenneth Mullins, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly-Situated v. UNITED COAL COMPANY LLC, WELLMORE COAL COMPANY, LLC, and WELLMORE ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00028-JPJ-PMS (E.D. Va., July 13, 2024), is brought seeking unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, for a class and collective composed of workers who, in one or more workweeks from March 9, 2017 to the present in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA"). The Defendants violated the FLSA and KWHA with respect to Plaintiffs and the similarly-situated employees in three ways. Specifically, Defendants required (or at the very least permitted) employees to engage in "off-the-clock" pre-shift work, including donning protective clothing, gathering, calibrating and donning protective devices, including devices required by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and gathering tools and supplies needed for the day's work. Further, Defendants deducted mid-shift time from employees for "underground travel." Finally, Defendants required (or at the very least permitted) "off-the-clock" post-shift work doffing (including placing on charge and storing for the next shift) protective clothing and equipment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as coal miners. Wellmore Energy Company, LLC is a Virginia for-profit limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis I. Tahinci, Esq. TAHINCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 105 Ford Avenue, Suite 3 Kingsport, TN 37663 Phone: (423) 840-1350 Email: alexis@tahincilaw.com - and - Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 213-1303 Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com - and - John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC P.O. Box 1746 Lexington, KY 40588 Phone: (859) 866-3097 Email: John@EmploymentLawKY.com UNITED STATES: Jordan Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed USA. The case is styled as Michael Jordan, Russell Greene, Jason Lambro, M Suzette Justice, Steve Justice, Marie-Pascale Ruberandinda, John Douglas Burke, individually and on behalf similarly situated individuals v. USA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01028-EMR (U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims., July 8, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay – FLSA for the Tucker Act. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Whitcomb, Esq. Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC 2000 South Colorado Boulevard Tower One, Suite 9500 Denver, CO 80222 Phone: (303) 534-1958 Fax: (303) 534-1949 Email: joe@whitcomblawpc.com UNIVERSITY CREDIT UNION: Ortiz Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Credit Union. The case is styled as Saray Ortiz, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. University Credit Union, Case No. 2:24-cv-06013-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. University Credit Union -- https://www.ucu.org/ -- is a California-based cooperative that takes pride in serving University communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis Leonardo Lozada, Esq. Thomas Andrew Saenz, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUC. FUND 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: (213) 629-2512 Fax: (213) 629-0266 Email: llozada@maldef.org tsaenz@maldef.org UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Stewart Files Suit in N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Texas at Austin. The case is styled as George Stewart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Case No. 5:24-cv-00169-H (N.D. Tex., July 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. The Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine -- https://www.ttuhsc.edu/ -- is the medical school of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 686-3940 Fax: (512) 686-3941 Email: jonathan@mitchell.law - and - Andrew Block, Esq. Gene Patrick Hamilton, Esq. Nicholas Barry, Esq. AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #231 Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 836-7958 Email: andrew.block@aflegal.org gene.hamilton@aflegal.org nicholas.barry@aflegal.org - and - Reed Darrow Rubinstein, Esq. AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 300 Independence Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 288-0277 Email: reed.rubinstein@aflegal.org The Defendant is represented by: Joseph D Hughes, Esq. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 2304 Whitis Avenue, Suite 438 Austin, TX 78712 Phone: (512) 475-7716 Email: jody.hughes@austin.utexas.edu - and - Eliot Fielding Turner, Esq. Layne E Kruse, Esq. Shauna Johnson Clark, Esq. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP 1550 Lamar, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 651-5113 Email: eliot.turner@nortonrosefulbright.com layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com shauna.clark@nortonrosefulbright.com UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Court Starts Hearing WARN Class-Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Shaynah Ferreira, writing for FOX 29 Philadelphia, reports that after the University of the Arts announced its closing a month ago, faculty and staff appeared in U.S. court on July 17 for a hearing over a class-action lawsuit brought by the UArts Employee Union over the federal WARN Act. The union claims the school didn't give the required notice to employees or pay them for it. Now, 704 former staff and faculty of the now-shuttered University of the Arts are still trying to find out if they will be paid for their work after the abrupt closure last month. A morning proceeding at the United States Courthouse on July 17 left many looming questions for impacted faculty and staff. "All artists, in general, whether they are employees of the university or not, are some of the most precarious employees that there are," said attorney Allen Hancock. "For them to be treated in such a manner is pretty hard to take." On July 17, in a courtroom without cameras allowed, attorneys representing the workers went before a federal judge to discuss the filings against UArts, which include unfair labor practice charges and a violation of the federal WARN Act. "Which provides that if you employ 100 people or more, and you're laying off 10 percent or more of the workforce, then you have to provide at least 60 days written notice of the closure to the employees," stated attorney Eric Lechtzin. However, UArts workers were only given a week's notice. "They were not paid for work that they had done," said Bradley Philbert, Executive VP of United Academics of Philadelphia Union. "The fact that the university closed right after graduation meant that a lot of people were put into a position where they don't know whether they will get paid." The attorney for the university stated budget issues proved to be a difficult factor in the decision to abruptly shut the school down, adding it's the school's intention to pay their workers but not before securing the necessary financing. "We really want to know what happened. Money would be nice obviously, but we wanna know why we lost our jobs," said former staff member Charis Duke. "The university dumped over 600 arts professionals into the job market on the same day, and Philadelphia can't possibly absorb that. So for those of us who aren't in a position to relocate, where are we gonna find a job?" The attorney representing the University of the Arts did not give a comment outside the courthouse. FOX 29 reached out to the Littler Mendelson firm for comment on the proceedings and have not heard back. The next hearing is set for August 12th. As far as word on whether the more than 700 workers will be paid, that's still up in the air. The union, however, says they are still in the fight. [GN] USC: B Doe Jewish Files Suit in C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Southern California. The case is styled Doe Jewish USC Faculty Member 2004, Doe Jewish USC Student 1987, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Southern California, erroneously sued as Trustees of The University of Southern California, Case No. 2:24-cv-05709 (in C.D. Cal., July 8, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. The University of Southern California -- https://www.usc.edu/ -- is a private research university in Los Angeles, California, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. VARSITY BRANDS: $82.5MM Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action, Jones, et al. v. Varsity Brands, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02892, an $82.5 million proposed Settlement will provide payments to persons who paid an All Star Gym or school to participate in a Varsity cheer competition or camp, or to buy Varsity cheer clothing. A class action was brought by competitive cheer athletes' families and alleged that Defendants, including Varsity Brands LLC and U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. ("Defendants") maintained control over the All Star Cheer and school cheer events, through acquisitions of rivals, purported exclusive dealing agreements, and purported collusion with USASF, in violation of antitrust laws. Further, the suit alleges that this anticompetitive conduct caused Varsity to overcharge for participation in competitive cheer competitions and camps and for the required apparel. Defendants believe Plaintiffs' claims lack merit, that their conduct was pro-competitive, not anticompetitive, and that Defendants have valid defenses to Plaintiffs' allegations. What does the Settlement provide? The Court has preliminarily approved a proposed $82.5 million settlement ("Settlement") for claims of competitive cheer athletes' families who indirectly paid for Varsity cheer competitions, camps, and/or apparel and also provides for changes in conduct to resolve the class action lawsuit called Jones et al. v. Varsity Brands, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02892, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ("Action"). The Settlement offers cash payments to members of the Damages Class who file valid timely Claim Forms. The details and deadline to submit a Claim Form will be made available after the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. Please visit www.CheerAntitrustSettlement.com for updates, and to view the full terms of the Settlement. Am I eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement? Everyone who fits this description is a member of the Damages Class: All natural persons and entities in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, that indirectly paid Varsity or any Varsity subsidiary or affiliate, from December 10, 2016, through March 31, 2024,5 for: (a) registration, entrance, or other fees and expenses associated with participation in one or more Varsity Cheer Competitions; (b) Varsity Cheer Apparel; (c) Varsity Cheer Camp Fees; or (d) accommodations at one or more Varsity Cheer Competitions. If you are not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help. You can call toll-free 1-877-796-7731 or visit www.CheerAntitrustSettlement.com for more information. How do I get a payment from the Settlement? The Court will hold a hearing on November 22, 2024, to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If the Settlement is approved, the Claim Form and plan for payment will be made available. The Court will approve a Claim Form and set a deadline for Class Members to submit a claim. To receive a payment, you must submit a valid and timely Claim Form. Please visit www.CheerAntitrustSettlement.com for updates. At this time, it is not known precisely how much each Class Member will receive from the Settlement Fund. The amount of your payment, if any, will be determined by the plan of allocation to be approved by the Court. The complete Plan of Allocation will be made available at www.CheerAntitrustSettlement.com. What are my rights? If you do nothing, you'll get no money from this Settlement. Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means that you can't sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against Defendants about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all of the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you, including the release of claims contained in the Settlement Agreement, even if you don't file a Claim Form. You may exclude yourself from the Settlement by sending a letter postmarked no later than September 26, 2024. If you do not agree with any part of the Settlement, you can send an objection so that it is received no later than September 26, 2024. Further instructions on excluding and objecting are available by viewing the FAQs or the Long Form Notice on the Settlement website at www.CheerAntitrustSettlement.com. The Court's hearing. The Court will hold a hearing on November 22, 2024 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and approve Class Counsel's request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses and service payments to the Class Representatives. You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense. More information about the Settlement is available on the Settlement website, www.CheerAntitrustSettlement.com, and in the Long Form Notice accessible on that website, or by calling 1-877-796-7731. This notice is only a summary. For more information, including the full Notice and Settlement Agreement, visit www.CheerAntitrustSettlement.com, email info@CheerAntitrustSettlement.com, or call 1-877-796-7731 Contact: Angeion Group Shiri Lasman (215) 563-4116 [GN] VAXART INC: Class Cert. Bid in Himmelberg Modified to July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. (re VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order modifying case schedule: Event New Date/Deadline Renewed Class Certification Motion July 30, 2024 Opposition to Renewed Class Certification Aug. 27, 2024 Motion Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Sept. 12, 2024 Sanctions Reply i/s/o Renewed Class Certification Sept. 17, 2024 Motion Hearing on Renewed Class Certification Oct. 10, 2024 at Motion 10:00AM Merits Expert Reports and Discovery Cutoff *stayed* Dispositive Motion Briefing *stayed* Motions in Limine *stayed* Pretrial Conference and Trial April 15, 2025 and April 28, 2025 Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant vaccines. A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d2ITSB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com steveb@hbsslaw.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. William C. Fredericks, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com wfredericks@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal R. Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Sina Safvati, Esq. Lillian Rand, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com ssafvati@akingump.com lrand@akingump.com VICTORIA: Towers Demolition to Go Ahead Despite Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Guardian reports that the Victorian government is forging ahead with plans to demolish three public housing towers subject to a class action seeking to stop the redevelopment. The move was described by a lawyer for residents as an example of them being "treated as an afterthought", after the supreme court ordered the class action could proceed to a two-day trial this month. Inner Melbourne Community Legal said it was notified by the Victorian government solicitor's office that Homes Victoria -- the body that oversees social housing in the state -- would sign a contract for demolition works to commence "on or after 19 July". It said the contract would apply to the first three occupied towers slated for demolition that are the focus of the class action -- 33 Alfred Street and 120 Racecourse Road in North Melbourne, and 12 Holland Street in Flemington. The letter from the solicitor's office did not provide details on the order in which the towers would be demolished. Louisa Bassini, the managing lawyer at Inner Melbourne Community Legal, said it was disappointing the government was "steamrolling ahead" with plans to raze the buildings despite the ongoing class action. "The project just continues to be rolled out in this really hastened and forceful way," Bassini said. "The concerns of the residents have been treated as an afterthought from the outset. Even now, when the courts are about to review this . . . they're proceeding at full pace. "It is, to us, evidence of them being determined to proceed regardless of what residents or the courts might have to say." The redevelopment of the state's 44 high-rise public housing towers was a key pillar of the state government's housing statement, unveiled by the then premier, Daniel Andrews, last September, and would involve the relocation of more than 10,000 residents. But according to the plan only 11,000 of the 30,000 people living at the estates by 2051 would be in "social housing" -- an increase of just 10% on today's figures. The remaining 19,000 residents were expected to be private owners and "affordable" housing tenants. Even those within the Labor party ranks have been pushing for an increase in the amount of social housing on the estate. The residents' class action was launched in January but faced a setback in May. At the time, the supreme court justice Melinda Richards rejected their lawyers' argument that government and the housing minister, Harriet Shing, should be defendants. The court last week ordered the class action could proceed to a two-day trial, to begin on 28 October, after lawyers acting on behalf of the residents reframed their legal argument. Homes Victoria is now listed as the sole defendant. The court will consider whether the body made the decision to demolish the towers properly and with appropriate consideration for the human rights of residents. Bassini said most residents had been pressured to move out of their homes, and made to feel there was no other option. She said it remained unclear whether they will be able to move back on to the estates once they are redeveloped. "If Homes Victoria was serious about people being able to return to their homes, not being worse off by being moved to community housing, then they would be signing deeds that assure people of that and give them a mechanism to enforce it," Bassini said. The lead plaintiff, Barry Berih, has lived in the Alfred Street tower for 25 years. He said he was "relieved" the case was going to trial. "The government didn't talk to us before they made the decision and they still aren't telling us everything about what is going to happen," Berih said. "This is taking a huge toll on me and the public housing community. We don't know what is happening to our homes, when and where we will go." In a statement, Homes Victoria said it would be "inappropriate to comment further" as the matter was before the courts. Homes Victoria has previously told the court no notices to vacate will be issued in relation to the three towers before 1 January 2025. [GN] VISA INC: Extends Antitrust Class Action Claim Filing to August 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy Fazio, John Hugo and Thomas Stanton, writing for JDSupra, report that in the massive antitrust class action against Visa, Mastercard and more than 25 banks, the deadline has been extended for victims of overpaid credit or debit card transaction fees to file a claim to their share of the $5.54 billion settlement -- one of the largest class action settlements in history. Merchants that accepted Visa or Mastercard credit or debit card payments in the United States between January 1, 2004 and January 25, 2019 may be entitled to monetary damages or other forms of relief as compensation for the overcharges. The deadline for eligible businesses to file a claim has been extended to August 30, 2024. Companies of all sizes across industries may be eligible to file a claim, especially in retail, e-commerce, hospitality and financial services. Class membership is automatic, but receiving a share of the settlement requires filing a timely claim. Class members who do not file a claim by August 30 will get nothing. The court already extended the deadline to August 30. Companies should not count on the court agreeing to further extend the deadline. It is not too late to start the process for filing a claim by providing evidence of eligibility of class membership. This is often as simple as providing a legal name, DBA and Tax Identification Number. The class administrator (CA) may require additional evidence to make a positive match and give approval to file the claim. If a company has not been notified as a class member, it does not mean it is ineligible. It is very common for eligible companies to not have been notified of their class membership -- so much so that the CA set up a specific process to address such instances. The court recently ruled that payment facilitators (e.g., PayPal) are not members of the class. Instead, their merchant-customers are the class members who are eligible for recovery. Visa/Mastercard Case Background Spanning decades of litigation, the Visa/Mastercard antitrust class action is principally about the interchange fees attributable to merchants that accepted Visa and Mastercard credit and debit cards from January 2004 to January 2019, and the card issuers' rules for merchants accepting their cards. In April 2019, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a public notice of the proposed settlement -- not less than $5.54 billion would be paid to class members filing claims, making this one of the largest class action settlements in history. Later that year, the court granted final approval of the settlement, which, following appeal, was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in March 2023. In December 2023, the CA began mailing cards to class members with information about their claims and how to file for their share or request additional information. The cards included a summary of the number of transactions, purchase volume and interchange fees maintained in the CA's database. The CA also set an original deadline for May 31, 2024 for the class members to either accept the CA's numbers or seek additional information. Interest in the case grew exponentially this spring. The CA was overwhelmed by requests for additional information and by other procedural issues arising out of the unprecedented number of claims. As a result, the court extended the time for class members to submit their claims to August 30, 2024. Companies should take advantage of this extension to file a claim and should not expect the deadline to be further extended. [GN] WALMART INC: Settlement Deal in Arrison Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathy Arrison, et al., v. Walmart Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement agreement. The Couret further entered an order certifying the following class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), subject to the class exclusions set forth in the settlement agreement: "All individuals who worked at a Walmart retail store in Arizona as a nonexempt store employee at any point during the class period of April 10, 2020, through February 28, 2022." The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims of the class against Walmart in the litigation, without costs and fees except as explicitly provided for in the settlement agreement. The Court grants Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and plaintiffs' service awards. The Court awards class counsel $625,000 in attorneys' fees and reimbursement of $118,160.55 in litigation expenses, to be paid according to the terms of the settlement agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement of expenses is fair and reasonable. The Court awards each named Plaintiff a service award of $5,000, for a total of $10,000. On Feb. 16, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement (Doc. 95) that preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and established a hearing date to consider the final approval of the settlement agreement and class counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses. This case is a wage and hour class action lawsuit covering approximately 81,000 employees who worked at Defendants' 112 locations in Arizona. The Plaintiffs primarily alleged that the Defendants failed to pay wages for time spent in COVID-19 screening and failed to keep accurate records of related work time. The Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement in February 2024. The Plaintiffs report that all but 1,942 members of the class received direct mail notice of the settlement—yielding notice to 97.6% of the class. The Plaintiffs also note that there have been forty-eight opt-outs and one objection. Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pZSX6O at no extra charge.[CC] WARNER BROS: Ferguson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Matthew Ferguson, in his representative capacity and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 24STCV17784 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. -- https://www.warnerbros.com/ -- is an American film and entertainment studio headquartered at the Warner Bros. Studios complex in Burbank, California, and a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Discovery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2013 Phone: 323-482-3300 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com WEILL CORNELL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Paduch Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- An attempt to dismiss and seal a massive sex abuse class action lawsuit against criminally convicted former urologist Darius Paduch -- with nearly 300 male plaintiffs -- has failed, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled Thursday, July 18. Judge Suzanne J. Adams ruled that the class action suit against the doctor and the medical institutions which employed him should move forward, and demanded that Paduch finally produce a reply to the complaint later this summer. "I'm so grateful the judge took this seriously and came down the right way," said lawyer for the nearly 300 victims, Anthony T. DiPietro. The class action suit has grown from 58 victims when it was initially filed in August 2023 to a staggering 278 former patients as of Thursday, July 18. DiPietro has previously won nearly $250 million in lawsuits related to former Columbia gynecologist Robert Hadden, and he says this case might be even larger in scale, noting that a number of new victims had joined the suit just this week. He exclusively told The Post that the civil suit is perhaps "our only opportunity to hold these institutions accountable for the role they played in this massive cover up." Lawyers for Paduch and the top hospitals where he worked for two decades -- Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork Presbyterian Hospital, Northwell Health and Columbia University -- attempted to use a precedent set by rulings in sexual abuse cases involving the Catholic Church to keep "scandalous" accusations from the public record, and to dismiss the case entirely. Paduch's abuse included making them masturbate in front of him or masturbating them himself -- sometimes insisting they get on all fours so he could "stimulate" or "milk" their prostate gland, the filing claims. DiPietro estimates that roughly 20 percent of the nearly 300 former patients who are part of the class action were victimized as minors, he told The Post. Paduch also "performed unnecessary surgical procedures on patients, often without any anesthesia, in an effort to inflict pain [on] the patients," the suit claims. Then he "dispensed copious opioid medication in an effort to get his patients addicted so that he could better manipulate, control, exploit and abuse them -- all without any basis in actual medical standards of care," the filing alleges. DiPietro said that the sexual criminals of the medical world, like Paduch, Hadden and former USA gymnastics coach and convicted rapist Larry Nassar "are actually not the problem." "They're a symptom. The problem [is] these institutions that cover this up, gaslight and lie to patients and keep exposing more unsuspecting patients to a known serial sexual predator," he said. Paduch was criminally convicted by a federal jury in May on 13 counts related to the sexual abuse of eight patients. The disgraced doctor also faces a slew of litigation from dozens of other victims in unrelated sexual abuse suits, including a former intern who said he was just 16-years-old at the time of his abuse. A spokesperson for Weill Cornell said that they are "heartbroken for these survivors" and that the institution has "implemented enhancements to our policies and training requirements, and launched new patient safety programs, to minimize the risk of such abhorrent conduct occurring in the future." Lawyers representing Paduch, NewYork Presbyterian, Columbia and Northwell Health did not immediately reply to a request for comment. [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: Plaintiffs Appeal Corrections Class Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Southern West Virginia law firm representing inmates in the state's correctional system is appealing a decision by a federal judge at the beginning of July to dismiss the case filed against Gov. Jim Justice and Department of Homeland Security Cabinet Secretary Mark Sorsaia last year. Stephen New of Beckley-based Stephen New and Associates filed a notice of appeal Tuesday, July 16, after U.S. District Court Judge Irene Berger granted motions July 2 to dismiss a case brought by several inmates against Justice and Sorsaia. "Plaintiffs hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit the Memorandum and Opinion Order granting Defendants Mark Sorsaia and Governor Justice's Motions to Dismiss . . . and the Judgment Order," New wrote. New is appealing Berger's ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after Berger sided with the state against the claims levied by New and the inmates in the class action lawsuit. In her memorandum opinion and order, Berger said the inmates should have filed suit against the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) regarding their complaints about jail and prison conditions. She also said the West Virginia Legislature should have been sued, as they have the responsibility of passing the general revenue budget that funds DCR. The class action lawsuit by the inmates was filed last August in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against Justice and Sorsaia accusing the state of understaffing, overcrowding and delays of deferred maintenance for the state's 11 prisons, 10 regional jails, 10 juvenile centers and three work-release sites. The inmates accuse the state of violating their Eighth Amendment constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. They are seeking a ruling in their favor and an order to require the state to spend no less than $330 million on staffing and maintenance for the state's entire correctional system with available funds or by submitting appropriations bills. The state settled a similar lawsuit with New and clients in November focused on the Southern Regional Jail near Beckley while that lawsuit continues with local county governments and medical providers. The total of the settlement with SJR inmates was $4 million, coming from four $1 million insurance policies through the state Board of Risk and Insurance Management. The settlement was to be divided between eligible inmates who were incarcerated at SJR between Sept. 22, 2020, and the date of the finalized settlement, or approximately 9,200 inmates. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on Jan. 9. The settlement came shortly after U.S. Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn issued a 39-page order finding in favor of a motion from the inmates seeking default judgment against the state. Aboulhosn accused DCR officials of intentionally destroying evidence, including emails and electronically stored documents. [GN] WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Seeks to Dismiss Esquivel Retirement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Santana, writing for My San Antonio, reports that Whataburger is seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by a former employee that believes two funds mismanaged his retirement plan. The San Antonio-based burger chain filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Monday, July 15, in Texas federal court, saying that the former employee, Manuel Esquivel, has no merit, court documents say. The retirement plan that Esquivel was part of had 9,796 participants with assets totaling around $215 million in 2022, court documents say. Esquivel filed the original complaint in March this year, alleging that Whataburger failed to properly manage and inform him that two investment funds trailed the benchmark, or underperformed, since 2019. The complaint says that the retirement committee and Whataburger should have monitored the funds and looked for replacements but breached their "fiduciary duty." That breach, the complaint says, led to 'millions of dollars in losses." Whataburger's motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was filed Monday says that Esquivel is mixing and matching the time periods of when the funds did not perform well and "plays games with time in an attempt to allege substantial underperformance." Whataburger also claims that Esquivel no longer has the right to sue after he signed a severance agreement. A Whataburger spokesperson told MySA in an emailed statement that they disagree with the allegations in the complaint. "The company takes seriously its duties and obligations to the plan participants and will vigorously defend itself in this litigation." [GN] WORLD TRAVEL: Class Settlement in Preston Lawsuit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHAEDRA PRESTON, v. WORLD TRAVEL HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:23-cv-12389-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order granting Preston's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement, appointment of class representative and class counsel, and certification of settlement class. The Court will issue a separate order generally adopting Preston's proposed order, which summarizes these findings, authorizes dissemination of the class notice, and details the schedule moving forward, including for the final approval hearing. The Plaintiff Phaedra Preston filed this putative collective and class action against World Travel Holdings, Inc. for nonpayment of wages to agents who help customers book travel. She alleges that World Travel has failed to pay its agents overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and asserts common law breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims alleging that World Travel has failed to fully compensate agents at their hourly rate when they work forty hours per week or less. For purposes of settlement, Preston has sufficiently satisfied the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) to certify, as agreed by the parties, a class comprising: "All current and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant in the United States as customer service agents at any time from October 16, 2020, through the earlier of July 1, 2024 or the date on which the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. World Travel owns various cruise and vacation brands, and distributes cruises, villas, hotels, resort vacations, and luxury travel packages. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cX4bYN at no extra charge.[CC] YOUNG LIVING: Bid to Seal Class Cert Supplemental Memo Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Cecilia Romero entered an order granting motion to seal supplemental memorandum in support of motion for class certification. Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal regarding portions of Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification and exhibits that quote or summarize materials marked confidential as well as the entire transcript from the hearing conducted on June 13, 2024. The Motion being narrowly tailored to protect only the specific information deserving of protection, pursuant to DUCivR 5-3, and for good cause appearing. Young Living sells essential oils and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f0vySH at no extra charge.[CC] YOUNG LIVING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (D. Utah), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file its response to the Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification to Aug. 28, 2024. Young Living's response is currently due on Aug. 14, 2024. The extension will allow Young Living and its counsel to avoid conflicts during the summer holiday season. The Plaintiff does not oppose the relief requested in this motion. Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi, Utah. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KcHgh2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Defendant is represented by: Jeremy A. Fielding, Esq. Jon David Kelley, Esq. Rachael A. Rezabek, Esq. Aysha M. Spencer, Esq. Stefan H. Atkinson, Esq. Christopher X. Fernandez, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 4550 Travis Street Dallas, TX 75205 Telephone: (214) 972-1770 Facsimile: (214) 972-1771 E-mail: jeremy.fielding@kirkland.com jon.kelley@kirkland.com rachael.rezabek@kirkland.com aysha.spencer@kirkland.com stefan.atkinson@kirkland.com christopher.fernandez@kirkland.com - and - Robert S. Clark, Esq. Jeffrey J. Hunt, Esq. David C. Reymann, Esq. Bryan S. Johansen, Esq. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 101 S 200 E Ste 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Facsimile: (8010 532-7750 E-mail: rclark@parrbrown.com jhunt@parrbrown.com dreymann@parrbrown.com bjohansen@parrbrown.com YUBA CITY HOTEL: Munger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuba City Hotel, LP, et all. The case is styled as Yvetter Munger, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Yuba City Hotel, LP, Chico Hotel LP, Hollister Gateway Hotel, LP, Lathrop Hotel, LP, Lotus Management Group LLC, Lotus Management, Inc., Oro Hotel, L.P., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008218 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 12, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Yuba City Hotel, LP is a hotel company in Yuba City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-556-4811 ZUCKERMAN FAMILY FARMS: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Maria Moreno, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008288 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 15, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Zuckerman Family Farms Inc. -- https://zuckermanproduce.com/ -- provides crop farming services. The Company specializes in growing crops such as grain, oilseeds, tobacco, dry beans, potatoes, vegetables, melons, fruits, nuts, and floriculture.[BN] [*] Fraud Rising in Claims-Made Class Action Settlements -------------------------------------------------------- Michael D. Leffel, McKenzie L. Ahmet and Andrew C. Gresik, writing for foley.com, report that when settling consumer product class actions, many parties agree to resolve their claims using what is known as a "claims-made" settlement model. When a claims-made settlement is reached, class members must submit a "claim" to receive a portion of the monetary settlement. A claims-made process is justified in many circumstances, including, for example: when the identity of the class members or contact information for them is not readily available; when the amount a consumer may have paid for a particular product is not known to the defendant; or where there are other issues unique to each individual class member that might impact their portion of the recovery. Depending on the nature of the agreement, a class member may make a claim by, for example, submitting a receipt showing purchase of the at-issue product, filling out an online form, or, in some cases, merely by clicking a few buttons. In principle, and oftentimes in practice, claims-made settlements are an effective and efficient way to resolve class claims. However, over the past few years, evidence suggests that claims-made settlements -- particularly those administered digitally -- have become saturated with fraudulent claims. For example, in a case settled recently in Wisconsin, while counsel for plaintiffs and defendants were aware that the class could not have included more than roughly 18,000 individuals, more than 780,000 claims were submitted in the settlement. Fortunately, in that case, there were measures in the settlement agreement to ferret out obvious instances of abuse, but the situation demonstrates the vast number of fraudulent claims that may be submitted in a claims-made settlement. This is not an isolated example. In March 2024, a claims-made settlement resolving a consumer product suit against the manufacturer of an eyelash serum generated 6,526,866 claims by the end of the claims period. Just under 200,000 of these claims were deemed to be valid by the settlement administrator, meaning that an astounding 97% of claims made were fraudulent or otherwise invalid. While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of the seemingly dramatic increase in fraudulent claims, it is safe to assume that online publicity and internet virality play a nonnegligible role. Over the past few years, several claims-made settlements have gone viral on Twitter, TikTok, and other social media platforms, and countless websites have popped up that are dedicated to gathering and publicizing claims-made settlements. While this online publicity provides greater notice and easy access to potential valid claimants, it also increases the likelihood of catching the attention of fraudsters seeking to make a quick buck. What's more, there is evidence that some are making use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and online bots to file claim after claim when news of a new settlement hits the internet. For example, a claims-made settlement approved in California federal court saw nearly 5,500 claims originating from the same IP address, with nearly 1,000 claims submitted from the address of one single-family home. See Opperman v. Kong Techs, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (Dkt. 911 at p. 4). The rise of fraud in the claims-made settlement context has adverse effects on defendants and class members alike. When the parties agree to a limited settlement fund, fraudulent claimants dwindle the available pool, leaving fewer funds available for real claimants. Conversely, when the parties agree that the defendant will compensate all claimants that submit claims, defendants risk significant overpayment to fraudulent claimants. Accordingly, both class counsel and defense counsel should remain vigilant when drafting and reviewing claims-made settlement agreements and should take extra care to ensure that such agreements proactively protect against fraudulent claims. Counsel might consider requiring class members to submit proof of purchase or, at the very least, to execute a declaration attesting to such purchase under penalty of perjury to increase the legitimacy of incoming claims. Courts, too, should remain alert to the potential for fraud when approving claims-made settlements and should consider more rigorous claims requirements to guard against further abuse. [GN] [*] Silverthorne, CO to Join Forever Chemicals Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kit Geary, writing for Summit Daily, reports that Silverthorne Town Council gave the town approval to participate in a class action lawsuit against two corporations after pollutants that are commonly called "forever chemicals" were found in some town water supplies. Public works director Tom Daugherty told Silverthorne Town Council at a July 10 work session that two sets of positive test results for PFAS, which is an acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, made the town eligible to join a lawsuit against 3M and DuPont, which he described to be "major producers of PFAS." Silverthorne staff members said the results showed the town had four PFAS entry points identified in municipal pump houses, which are public utility infrastructures that deal with moving water. Created in the 1940s, PFAS are manufactured chemicals that resist grease, oil, water and heat. They are commonly called forever chemicals since they break down very slowly over time. The lawsuit accompanies a slew of legal actions taken over the last several years against companies who have been proven to produce PFAS given the chemicals' links to major health risks, such as cancer. 3M has found itself at the center of a handful of the lawsuits and recently paid $10 billion to water utilities across the nation after officials sought compensation for cleanup costs. Daugherty said PFAS were first flagged in testing conducted by the state in 2020, which Silverthorne voluntarily participated in. In addition to 2020 data being used in the lawsuit, 2023-24 testing data will be submitted as well. "Our PFAS levels were very low. They were actually below the maximum contaminant limit that has been set by EPA," Daughtery said. "But that doesn't mean that we're disqualified from the lawsuit." Council member Tim Applegate questioned Daughtery whether "there was a downside to being (a part of the lawsuit)" to which Daughtery responded, "nope." Mayor Ann-Marie Sandquist said the opportunity seemed like a way to get "free money," although the amount of money the town could realistically get from the lawsuit would be fairly insignificant. At the time the 2020 test occurred, the Colorado Department of Health & Environment had a state limit of 70 parts per trillion for PFAS, and the Silverthorne water results "were well below the state limit," according to the town's website. But the federal government issued a new advisory for PFAS on June 15, 2022, which changed things. According to Silverthorne town staffers, the advisory set the limit to lowest detectable amount of PFAS that labs can trace. The advisory did not serve as a federal regulation, which meant Silverthorne technically was not out of compliance with its PFAS levels. It did prompt the town to increase the frequency in which it tested for PFAS, which is why it now has data for 2023-24. Silverthorne officials said both the 2020 and the 2023-24 results were similar and were below the Environmental Protection Agency's current mass contamination level. The town plans to look at solutions if it would ever need to remediate PFAS levels, but at this time officials said no remediation efforts are needed. Daughtery said the widespread usage of the chemical makes them fairly prevalent in everyday life. "Many things in this room likely have PFAS. The carpet probably has water resistant coating on it that contains them," Daughtery said. Frisco joined two similar lawsuits in November 2023 after PFAS were discovered in its water supplies also through 2020 testing. The class-action settlements it participated in also involved 3M and Dupont. According to the New York Times, experts are saying these legal battles are just the beginning of the fight to get compensation for PFAS. In May, the New York Times reported plastic industry professionals were told to gear up for PFAS lawsuits with potentially "astronomical" costs that could "dwarf" the corporate liability lawsuits related to asbestos. [GN] [*] Slater Vecchio Probes Potential Suit Over Plant-Based Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- Irish Mae Silvestre, writing for Daily Hive, reports that a law firm is investigating a potential class-action lawsuit after two brands of plant-based beverages were recalled across Canada due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Slater Vecchio LLP, a BC and Quebec-based law firm focusing on class-action lawsuits, has announced that it's looking into a possible lawsuit against the two food manufacturers. "Slater Vecchio LLP is investigating a class-action lawsuit against the manufacturers of Silk and Great Value branded plant-based milk products," reads a statement on the company's website. "On July 8, 2024, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announced a recall for 18 different Silk and Great Value plant-based milk products due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination." The CFIA's investigation is ongoing, and the agency has already reported a foodborne outbreak, with people falling ill after consuming the contaminated beverages. "Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick," warned the CFIA. "Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache, and neck stiffness." Pregnant people, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Severe cases of illness may cause death. On July 8, Danone Canada, which owns Silk, said it halted production and shipments from its facility as the investigation continues. "We are deeply concerned about these reports and are taking this matter extremely seriously," said Frederic Guichard, president of Danone Canada. Slater Vecchio LLP states that people injured by a dangerous product, who paid the price for anti-competitive business practices, who had their privacy violated, or who were wronged by an unfair contract or deal "may not have the ability to pursue recourse to the Courts on their own." "This is where class-action lawsuits come into play," it stated. [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 ***