/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240806.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 6, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 157 Headlines ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Clark Says ADVANCE STORES: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Cook Says AKIMA GLOBAL: Bid in Limine on Expert Testimony Due August 14 ALEBRIJE ENTERTAINMENT: Two Defendants Dismissed from Class Suit AMAZON WEB: Court Modifies Case Deadlines in Rivera Class Suit ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Seeks Extension of Certain Deadlines AT&T INC: St. Mary Parish Joins Class Suit Over Old Cables BAKER HUGHES CO: Continues to Defend Reckstin Securities Class Suit BALDOR SPECIALTY: Court Corrects Class Definition in Del Rosario BGC HOUSING: Faces Class Action Over Delays on Home Builds BMO INVESTMENTS: Court Expands Class on Trailer Commissions BOW PLUMBING: Parties Seek to Amend Proposed Final Approval Order BUCKLEY CABLE: Fails to Pay Foreman's Overtime Wages Under FLSA BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Gibson Sues Over Denial of Overtime Payment CAE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 10 CALIFORNIA FAIR: Residents Sue Over Insurance's Subpar Coverage CAPITAL ONE: Consumers Sue to Block $35-Bil. Discover Merger CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Plasse Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts CDK GLOBAL: Court Certifies Vendor's Class Action Lawsuit CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Coulson Says CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: GPM Probes Potential Federal Law Violations DANONE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Listeria Outbreak DOMA HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Title Resources ECONUGENICS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Alleges EL BANDIDO RESTAURANT: Dutan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ELMA ELECTRONIC INC: Pardillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ERPICO LANDSCAPING: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EVOLUTIONS HAIR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Wahab Suit Says FALCETTI PIANOS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Valencia Suit Says FCA US: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to File Second Amended Complaint FCA US: Settles Engine Defect Class Action Suit for $6-Mil. FERRARA CANDY: Orozco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation FLEX-N-GATE LLC: Shepherd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FOLEY HOAG: Modny Sues Over $50,000 Unpaid Overtime Pay GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Cereal's Toxic Lead Levels HARBOR FREIGHT: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says HATCH BABY: Durst Sues Over Unsafe First Generation Sound Machine HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Engine Security Class Suit for $145-Mil. JRD 570: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Gaspa Suit Says KROGER CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says LOBLAW COS: Settles Bread Price-Fixing Class Action For $500-Mil. MAERCKER SCHOOL: Faces Franzone Suit Over Age Discrimination MCG HEALTH: Settles Data Security Class Suit for $8.8 Mil. MINNESOTA GASTROENTEROLOGY: Fails to Secure Info, Castillon Says MNGI DIGESTIVE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Moalimyusuf Alleges MONSANTO CORP: Federal Court Dismisses Weed Killers' Class Suit MORGAN & MORGAN: Defends 'Botched' Injury Claims Class Action MOSES H. CONE: Faces Patient Data Sharing Class Action Lawsuit MUNICIPAL APPAREL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims OAKVILLE, ON: Court Approves Overdevelopment Class Settlement PLAINVILLE GAMING: Faces Katopodis Suit Over Illegal Gambling RESTORE IT ALL: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v Hillman REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Fulton RIO TINTO: Bougainville Mine Class Suit Hearing Set October 1 ROANOKE JH: Dogan Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & VWPS SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Bryant-Booker Says STEVEN MADDEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges T-MOBILE USA: Consumers Sue Over Service Plans Price Change THREE LOWER: Loses Bid to Substitute Party in Doe Class Action TRADITIONS BANCORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With ACNB VICOR CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Investors YUDIN'S INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Harrell Suit Says [*] Class Action Seeks GBP480MM From Freeholders for Hidden Payouts [*] CrowdStrike IT Outage Prompts Businesses to File Class Action ********* ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Clark Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JILLIAN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00429-FL (E.D.N.C., July 25, 2024) contends that the Defendant breached its duty and betrayed the trust of the Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On May 23, 2024, Advance Auto Parts detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. The breach notification letter posted on the Maine Office of the Attorney General's website says "an unauthorized third party accessed or copied certain information maintained by Advance Auto Parts from April 14, 2024, to May 24, 2024." Through this infiltration, cybercriminals potentially accessed and acquired files containing the sensitive personal information of 2,316,591 individuals. According to AAP, the personal information accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and government identification numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. For example, now that their Personal Information has been released into the criminal cyber domains, the Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. This risk will continue for the rest of their lives, as the Plaintiff and Class members are now forced to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and using their Personal Information, the Plaintiff asserts. Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class members have already lost time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the Data Breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to the Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. The Plaintiff received a notice letter from the Defendant dated July 10, 2024, informing her that her Personal Information—including her Social Security Number—was specifically identified as having been exposed to cybercriminals in the Data Breach. AAP is an automotive parts provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ADVANCE STORES: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Cook Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CALEB COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:24-cv-00426-BO (E.D.N.C., July 24, 2024) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on the Plaintiff and millions of similarly situated persons ("Nationwide Class Members") due to the Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals. The suit says that the Data Breach affected 2.3 million customers and employees. The data which the Defendant collected from the Plaintiff and Nationwide Class Members, and which was exfiltrated from the Defendant by cybercriminals, were highly sensitive, including personal identifying information ("PII") such as: name, social security number, driver's license or other government issued identification number, and date of birth. On July 10, 2024, the Defendant mailed the Data Breach Notification letter to its former and current clients. As a result, the identities of the Plaintiff and Nationwide Class Members are in jeopardy -- all because of Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff and Nationwide Class Members now suffer from a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft and must now constantly monitor their financial accounts, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff and Nationwide Class Members have suffered -- and will continue to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief -- including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. Plaintiff Cook was an employee with Advance Auto Parts until October 2023. Advance Auto Parts operates an automotive aftermarket parts provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road Suite 300 Wilmington NC 28403 Telephone (910) 772-9960 E-mail: irr@irr@rhinelawfirm.com ras@rhinelawfirm.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com AKIMA GLOBAL: Bid in Limine on Expert Testimony Due August 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yeend, et al., v. Akima Global Services, LLC (AGS), Case No. 1:20-cv-01281 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 16, 2020), the Hon. Anne M. Nardacci Judge entered an order that: -- The Defendant's Letter Motion seeking a pre-motion conference or leave to file a motion to strike is denied. -- The Defendant's unopposed Letter Motion seeking a pre-motion conference or leave to file a motion in limine pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is granted. Defendant shall file its motion in limine Aug. 14, 2024 related to the expert testimony and reports Plaintiffs offer in support of their class certification motion by: Plaintiffs shall file their opposition by: Sept. 4, 2024 Defendant may file a reply in further Sept. 11, 2024 support of its motion by: -- The portion of Defendant's first dispositive motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and Defendant's second dispositive motion, are held in abeyance without date and the Court will issue a briefing schedule with respect to the second dispositive motion when appropriate following resolution of the remaining pending motions. -- The Plaintiffs' Letter Motions are denied as moot. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. AGS provides the people, equipment, and processes that safeguard federal buildings, military bases, and detention centers.[CC] ALEBRIJE ENTERTAINMENT: Two Defendants Dismissed from Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David S. Leibowtiz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled on several motions filed by certain defendants in the case captioned as AVR GROUP, LLC, TRIDENT ASSET MGMT. GROUP, INC., and MICHAEL DZIURGOT, Plaintiffs, v. ALEBRIJE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:24-cv-20755-LEIBOWITZ (S.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs-investors bring this purported class action lawsuit to recover money (allegedly) lost through a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Defendants utilizing an entity known as 1inMM Capital, LLC. Plaintiffs are suing Defendants Craig Cole, Gustavo Montaudon, and Alebrije Entertainment, LLC, for "aiding and abetting fraud" (Count I) and have sued all Defendants for unjust enrichment (Count II). Two individual Defendants, Craig Cole and Matthew Cole, move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Leibowtiz notes to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. In this case, Plaintiffs allege generally: "This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants transacted business within this judicial district, made contacts within this judicial district, and/or have committed tortious acts within this judicial district." Plaintiff's personal jurisdictional allegations as to the Cole Defendants, taken as true, are as follows: Craig Cole was advertised as Zachary Horwitz's right-hand man. Horwitz is a convicted fraudster and owner of the entity that engaged in the alleged Ponzi scheme, 1inMM Capital, LLC. Craig's father, Defendant Matthew Cole, was 1inMM's first significant investor, providing 1inMM with one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) on October 15, 2013. Matthew Cole's initial $100,000 jump-started the alleged Ponzi scheme conducted by 1inMM. When performing work on behalf of 1inMM, Craig Cole used the e-mail address craig@1inMMcapital.com. One of Craig Cole's roles within 1inMM was to promote 1inMM to investors. By far the most valuable of Craig Cole's potential investors turned out to be his friend, Ryan Spiegal, and Ryan's father, Jeffrey Speigel, who formed SAC Advisory Group, LLC. SAC raised $75,132,950.00 for 1inMM from innocent investors including Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contend that the 1inMM Ponzi scheme would not have been funded but for Craig Cole, and that the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by 1inMM yielded Craig and Matthew Cole "millions of dollars." Craig Cole's Motion to Dismiss is supported by an affidavit which attests that Craig is a resident of Bend, Oregon, and that Craig has "never been a resident of Florida," "never been employed in Florida," "never routinely traveled to Florida," "never done business in Florida," "never had an office or agency in Florida," and "never. . . owned assets in Florida." Craig Cole further attests that, to the best of his knowledge, he "never contacted any person or entity in Florida, never transacted business in Florida, never solicited investments from Florida, and never traveled to Florida in furtherance of any of Zachary Horwitz's business ventures, including 1inMM." Finally, although 1inMM had many investors, Craig attests that he is not "aware of a single investor from Florida." Matthew Cole did not file an affidavit in support of his Motion to Dismiss, so Plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations as to Matthew are unrebutted. Florida's long-arm statute provides for two distinct categories of personal jurisdiction: specific jurisdiction conferred under Fla. Stat. Sec. 48.193(1), and general jurisdiction conferred under Fla. Stat. Sec. 48.193(2). Under Sec. 48.193(1)(a), a court has specific jurisdiction "for any cause of action arising from . . . operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state." That provision, in turn, has two requirements: first, that the defendant carried on a business in Florida; and second, that the cause of action arose from that business, the Court states. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show that the Cole Defendants conducted business in Florida, or that this cause of action arose from business conducted in Florida. Instead, Plaintiffs rely on unsworn allegations about a Ponzi scheme that the Cole Defendants allegedly participated in and gained from -- without citing any facts tying the alleged scheme to Florida, the Court says. According to the Court, to satisfy the second element for specific jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must show some "direct affiliation, nexus, or substantial connection between the cause of action and the [defendant's] activities within the state." Plaintiffs fail here too, the Court holds. Plaintiffs do not plead sufficient facts to establish a nexus between Craig Cole's alleged aiding-and-abetting the Ponzi scheme and his activities within the State of Florida, the Court finds. Indeed, Plaintiffs plead no facts that show a causal connection between Florida and their unjust enrichment claims, the Court adds. According to Craig Cole's affidavit, there are no links between 1inMM and Florida. Consequently, the Court lacks any basis that demonstrates specific personal jurisdiction over the Cole Defendants. Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes, provides that a Florida court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who engages in "substantial and not isolated activity within [Florida], whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise." Jurisdiction under this section does not require a showing of connectivity between a non-resident defendant's activities and plaintiff's cause of action. In considering a defendant's contacts, courts must look at the defendant's activities collectively over a relevant period of years leading up to the lawsuit. The level of business contacts required to establish general jurisdiction is generally greater than the level of contacts required to establish specific jurisdiction. The contacts "must be so extensive to be tantamount to a defendant being constructively present in the state to such a degree that it would be fundamentally fair to require it to answer in [the forum state's courts] in any litigation arising out of any transaction or occurrence taking place anywhere in the world." As alleged in this case, the Cole Defendants' contacts with Florida are minimal at best, the Court finds. Craig lives in Oregon and has never traveled to or done business in Florida. Matthew lives in Idaho, and even his $100,000 start-up money is not alleged to have touched the State of Florida. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to show the extensive Florida activities that would confer general jurisdiction over the Cole Defendants, the Court concludes. Accordingly, and upon due consideration, the Motions to Dismiss are granted. The Court concludes it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants Matthew Cole and Craig Cole, and thus dismisses them from this lawsuit. Also pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Motion to Dismiss by Alebrije Entertainment, LLC; (2) Motion for Judicial Notice by Matthew Cole; (3) Motion for Judicial Notice by Craig Cole; (4) Motion for Stay of Discovery by Matthew Cole; and (5) Defendant' Craig Cole's Notice of Joinder in Matthew Cole's Motion to Temporarily Stay Discovery. Based upon the Court's determination that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the Cole Defendants, the Motions are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Omnibus Order dated July 18, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LTCP2U AMAZON WEB: Court Modifies Case Deadlines in Rivera Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and YASMINE ROMERO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order modifying the current case deadlines in accordance with the Stipulated Motion. i. Staying all existing expert discovery deadlines. ii. Staying all existing class certification briefing deadlines. iii. Granting Plaintiffs leave to identify (through an amended complaint or supplemental interrogatory responses), no later than August 8, the class definition or definitions for which they intend to seek certification. For the avoidance of doubt, if Plaintiffs decide to seek certification of a class composed of end users of certain AWS Rekognition customers, then Plaintiffs must identify those AWS customers. iv. Granting AWS leave to conduct party and third-party fact discovery related to AWS’s class certification defenses and Plaintiffs' Aug. 8 class definition or definitions, and granting Plaintiffs leave to conduct third-party fact discovery related to AWS’s class certification defenses and Plaintiffs' August 8 class definition or definitions. v. Ordering the Parties to file, no later than August 15, a joint stipulation proposing deadlines for (i) AWS to conduct party and third-party fact discovery related to AWS's class certification defenses and Plaintiffs’ August 8 class definition or definitions, and for Plaintiffs to conduct third-party fact discovery related to AWS's class certification defenses and Plaintiffs' August 8 class definition or definitions; (ii) the Parties to complete expert discovery regarding class certification; and (iii) the Parties to complete class certification briefing. On April 23, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report, including proposed deadlines for expert discovery and class certification briefing, which the Court adopted On May 15, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion and [Proposed] Order for Extension of Fact Discovery Deadlines, which the Court granted. Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis. A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4tVeK3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. Schuyler Ufkes, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com sufkes@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan Spear, Esq. Nicola Menaldo, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: RSpear@perkinscoie.com NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Seeks Extension of Certain Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY EFFINGER and KEEFE STEVERNU, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ANCIENT ORGANICS, Case No. 3:22-cv-03596-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Aug. 29, 2024, for an order extending the following deadlines: -- Class Certification Expert Disclosures: (currently July 24, 2024); -- Class Certification Expert Rebuttal (currently Aug. 7, 2024); -- Class Certification Close of Expert Discovery (currently Aug. 28, 2024); -- Class Certification Motion (currently Sept. 11, 2024) -- Opposition to Class Certification (currently Oct. 23, 2024); -- Reply to Class Certification Opposition (currently Nov. 20, 2024); and -- Class Certification Motion Hearing (currently Jan. 9, 2025). On June 5, 2024, the Court entered its scheduling order which established specific deadlines for the Parties. The Defendant's failure to participate in good faith in this litigation has caused significant delays to satisfy the Court's deadlines. The Defendant's gamesmanship and stonewalling has severely inhibited this litigation. The Defendant has produced fewer than 50 documents. Ancient Organics specializes in producing organic ghee using traditional methods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IfEGdA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq. GOOD | GUSTAFSON | AUMAIS LLP 2330 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 103 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 274-4663 E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com AT&T INC: St. Mary Parish Joins Class Suit Over Old Cables ---------------------------------------------------------- St. Mary Now reports that St. Mary Parish and the cities of Franklin and New Iberia are plaintiffs in a proposed class action lawsuit against two telecom companies over alleged failure to remove lead-lined telecommunications cables. Attorneys with the Burns Charest law firm of New Orleans office have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against AT&T and Lumen Technologies in 16th Judicial District Court in Franklin. The litigation filed on behalf of the local governments and affected individuals claims that the companies have known for years about potential health risks from the deteriorating cables, the law firm said. The lawsuit seeks damages for trespass and negligence against the defendants, claiming that the known health risks "will continue until the cables are removed, the contamination is stopped, and the properties are restored to their original, uncontaminated condition." Korey Nelson and Amanda Klevorn of Burns Charest represent the plaintiffs, along with attorneys Barry Sallinger of Lafayette and Robert C. Vines of New Iberia. [GN] BAKER HUGHES CO: Continues to Defend Reckstin Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from Reckstin Family securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al., No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Amended Complaint names the following as defendants: (i) C3.ai., Inc. ("C3 AI"), (ii) certain of C3 AI's current and/or former officers and directors, (iii) certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering (the "IPO"), and (iv) the Company, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On February 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims against the Company. However, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, reasserting their claims against the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of these proceedings. Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the successor to Baker Hughes Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (Baker Hughes) is a fullstream oilfield technology provider that has a unique mix of equipment and service capabilities. It conducts business in more than 120 countries and employs over 65,000 employees. BALDOR SPECIALTY: Court Corrects Class Definition in Del Rosario ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDUARDO ANTONIO JIMENEZ DEL ROSARIO, JAYSON MERCADO, and TANEISHA LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. BALDOR SPECIALTY FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03580-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered an order correcting the following class definition in the April 22 order: -- All other provisions in the April 22 order, including the schedule and deadlines set, remain: The settlement agreement provides for a settlement class defined as follows: "All 13,382 individuals who were given notice by Baldor that their PII was potentially compromised in the Data Incident discovered by Baldor in Feb. 2023." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) judge presiding over this action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid request for exclusion prior to the Opt-out Deadline. On March 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On April 8, 2024, this Court held oral argument on that Motion and requested certain modifications to the Settlement Agreement. On April 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their supplemental Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which amended the class definition and the process for claim dispute resolution in the Settlement Agreement, the notices and claim form, and the proposed order granting preliminary approval. On April 22, 2024, this Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement but signed and entered the proposed order from the original motion. The amended notices were sent to the class. To fix this clerical error, on July 9, 2024, this Court vacated the April 22 preliminary approval order, and entered the July 9 amended preliminary approval order. Baldor is an importer and distributor of fresh produce and specialty foods in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oQhZIs at no extra charge.[CC] BGC HOUSING: Faces Class Action Over Delays on Home Builds ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Rabe, writing for Financial Review, reports the Rich Lister family-owned construction empire BGC Housing Group has been hit with a class action in Western Australia that lawyers say could grow to 5000 claimants and a compensation claim of more than $100 million. Law firm Morgan Alteruthemeyer Legal Group confirmed on Thursday, July 25, it had commenced proceedings in the WA Supreme Court against three BGC Housing Group companies. Morgan Alteruthemeyer building and construction partner Spencer Lieberfreund said thousands of Perth customers had been left facing major delays on home builds from contracts dating back to 2019. "The stories are absolutely heartbreaking. You've got people living on couches, families being separated, others are in caravans -- just completely unsatisfactory outcomes," he told The Australian Financial Review. "In terms of quantum, we're looking at over $100 million, and that's on a relatively conservative estimate." Mr Lieberfreund said some customers were facing delays of more than 400 days, while being hit with price increases after building had commenced. BGC, one of the country's largest builders, was founded by the late Len Buckeridge, who died in 2014. Three of his sons -- Sam Buckeridge, Andrew Buckeridge and Julian Ambrose -- sit on the company's board. The family has wealth of more than $1 billion, according to the 2024 Financial Review Rich List estimate published last year. The family members are not personally being sued in the case. The class action, on behalf of thousands of home owners who entered into building contracts with BGC Housing Group companies between 2019 and September 2022, is the first to be commenced in the WA Supreme Court. Morgan Alteruthemeyer claim the company breached Australian consumer law and its contractual obligations with individual home owners. Plaintiff in the class action, James Buck, said delays on his build had financially crippled his family. "I am happy that the class action has now commenced. BGC's conduct to me and my family while we were building our home left us devastated both financially and emotionally," he said. Meanwhile, the co-founder of a Facebook group -- BGC Proposed Class Action Group -- Jess Spithoven, said she hoped all home owners affected by BGC's actions would receive full compensation. A spokesman for BGC said the company would defend the class action. "We believe the basis of the case has potential widespread implications for all builders across the state and Australia," the company said. "The company will not let this distract us from our continued focus on delivering all homes as quickly as current labour market constraints allow." The spokesman said the company had ceased taking new home orders in April 2023, and had handed over more than 1800 homes. "We are making good progress, with 90 per cent of homes having passed the lock-up stage. Current completion rates are seeing us hand over 40-50 sets of keys per week." The Financial Review reported in January that the family behind BGC were planning to relaunch the sale of the building materials and home building company. Earlier plans to sell the business were shelved due to economic conditions. [GN] BMO INVESTMENTS: Court Expands Class on Trailer Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice previously certified a class action against BMO Investments Inc. ("BMO") on behalf of all persons who held or hold, at any time on or prior to May 18, 2021, units of a BMO Mutual Fund through a Discount Broker ("Original Class"). The Court has now expanded the class to all persons who held or hold, at any time on or prior to May 31, 2022, units of a BMO Mutual Fund through a Discount Broker ("Expanded Class"). It is alleged that, by paying trailing commissions to Discount Brokers and other acts or omissions, BMO breached legal and/or equitable duties to investors in the BMO Mutual Fund trusts. The class action claims monetary damages on behalf of the Class. The allegations made in the class action have not been proven and are contested by BMO. If you wish to participate in the class action, DO NOTHING. If you are a new Class Member (meaning you are a member of the Expanded Class but you were not a member of the Original Class), and you do not wish to participate in the class action, be bound by or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by sending the opt-out form to Verita Global Inc. by October 22, 2024. If you are a member of the Original Class, your opt-out period expired on May 27, 2022 and there is no further right to opt out of the class action. To obtain a copy of the opt-out form or for other important information regarding the class action: -- Visit https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/ -- Call toll-free 1-800-461-6166 ext. 1615 (North America) -- Call 226-636-1615 (Outside North America) [GN] BOW PLUMBING: Parties Seek to Amend Proposed Final Approval Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSELYN BRASWELL, et al., v. BOW PLUMBING GROUP INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00025-ECM-KFP (M.D. Ala.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order allowing the Parties to supplement Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class. The Parties have been diligently working and have reached an agreement as to, and jointly request the entry of, the Amended Proposed Final Approval Order attached hereto, following the July 29, 2024 final approval hearing. BOW Plumbing offers plastic pipe, fittings, drainage, and pressure plumbing products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WAi04E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kirby D. Farris Calle M. Mendenhall Malia D. Tartt FARRIS, RILEY & PITT, LLP The Gray Building 1728 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 324-1212 Facsimile: (205) 324-1255 E-mail: kfarris@frplegal.com cmedenhall@frplegal.com mtartt@frplegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Angel A. Croes, Esq. Caroline T. Pryor, Esq. Sarah Cross Ryan, Esq. Hannah R. Dellasala, Esq. CARR ALLISON 100 Vestavia Parkway Birmingham, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 822-2006 Facsimile: (205) 822-20257 E-mail: acroes@carrallison.com cpryor@carrallison.com sryan@carrallison.com hdellasala@carrallison.com BUCKLEY CABLE: Fails to Pay Foreman's Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DUGGAN, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v. BUCKLEY CABLE CONSTRUCTION CO., Case No. 2:24-cv-03296 (E.D. Pa., July 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the Class at overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. During Plaintiff Duggan's employment with the Defendant, he regularly worked 55 to 70 hours per week. However, he never received an overtime premium (e.g., time-and-a-half) for hours worked over 40. The Defendant also failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to the Plaintiff Duggan and the Class sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment in violation of the FLSA, the suit says. Plaintiff Duggan was employed as a Construction Foreman by the Defendant from April 4, 2024 through May 8, 2024. Since April 4, 2024, Plaintiff Duggan was paid on a piece-rate system meaning he was compensated based on the amount of cable he installed on work projects. Buckley Cable is a full-service communications contractor with specialties that include aerial & underground construction of communication networks, pole setting and removal, commercial and residential extensions, plant relocation, splicing, system removal, and natural disaster relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Gibson Sues Over Denial of Overtime Payment --------------------------------------------------------------- Josiah Gibson, on behalf of himself and on all others similarly situated v. BURLINGTON CAPITAL PM GROUP, INC; BURLINGTON CAPITAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-00299 (D. Neb., July 29, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act ("WPCA") and the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act ("NWHA") as a result of the Defendants denial of payment for all hours worked, including overtime. This case implicates Burlington Capital's longstanding policy of automatically deducting one hour of pay from employees' pay even when they did not take a meal period, and rounding down time, which results in failure to compensate non-exempt employees for all work performed. The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate the FLSA because of the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff, the putative Collective and Class members, be paid at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a single workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance director by the Defendant in Omaha, Nebraska at the Springhill Ridge Apartments. The Defendant owns and manages hundreds of properties across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com CAE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds 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. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against 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] CALIFORNIA FAIR: Residents Sue Over Insurance's Subpar Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Vives of Los Angeles Times reports that a class-action lawsuit against the California FAIR Plan Assn. accuses the state's insurance program of last resort of unlawfully selling policies with subpar coverage for fire and smoke damage. The lawsuit was filed Wednesday, July 24, in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of four California residents who seek to represent more than 365,000 FAIR Plan policyholders. Funded by a pool of private insurers who write policies in the state, the FAIR Plan serves as backup insurance for people unable to obtain coverage from private sources, especially those in high-risk areas where companies are reluctant to provide coverage. Over the last few years, the state insurer has seen a wave of new policyholders amid extreme and destructive wildfires that have caused insurance companies to leave the state or to stop renewing policies. As of March, the FAIR Plan was exposed to $340 billion in liabilities because of the high number of policies it had issued. The Department of Insurance requires fire insurance policies to cover "direct physical loss" caused by fire and smoke. But since 2017, the lawsuit claims, the FAIR Plan began limiting coverage after state officials approved a standard policy that, among other provisions, paid for smoke damage only if it was detectable to the unaided eye or nose of an average person rather than requiring laboratory testing. Dylan L. Schaffer, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the changes created a policy that is unlawful and fails to provide mandatory minimum coverage for losses caused by a fire. It also places residents at risk to contaminants that may not be visible to the human eye. "The illegal policy gives FAIR Plan and its member companies like State Farm and Nationwide license to refuse to properly investigate and pay wildfire smoke damage claims," Schaffer said. A spokesman for the California FAIR Plan Assn. said it does not comment on pending litigation. Because of those changes, Schaffer said, thousands of wildfire claims have been improperly denied. But the lawsuit also serves as an attempt to hold the Department of Insurance accountable for failing to enforce its own policies. The lawsuit claims that the department wrote a letter to the FAIR Plan in January 2021, saying the amended fire insurance policy was unlawful because it failed to provide "the mandatory minimum coverage required by California law." The letter also told the FAIR Plan that it had obtained approval for its policy based on "misrepresentations" and "concealment of material facts," according to the lawsuit. The letter directed the FAIR Plan to reform its policies, the lawsuit says, and review claims it had rejected. The lawsuit claims that the results of the department's findings were once again confirmed in a May 2022 report on the FAIR Plan's handling of wildfire claims. A spokesperson for the Insurance Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Schaffer, who is also litigating a separate suit on behalf of more than 1,000 homeowners in Los Angeles who say the FAIR Plan wrongly denied their claims, said the FAIR Plan continues to sell the same policies despite the department's findings. The lawsuit asks the court to order the association to comply with the law and increase the scope of wildfire coverage in all of its California policies. "We're not asking for any money, we're just asking the California FAIR Plan to come into the light, to come in where all its member carriers are," Schaffer said. "They all investigate smoke damage, they determine smoke damage and they pay for reasonable amounts for remediation." [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Consumers Sue to Block $35-Bil. Discover Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that banking giant Capital One and credit card issuer Discover Financial (DFS.N), opens new tab have been hit with a lawsuit claiming their proposed $35 billion merger would reduce competition, drive up prices and should be stopped. The proposed class action, opens new tab, filed on Monday, July 22, in Alexandria, Virginia federal court by two Capital One customers in Vermont and New Jersey, said the deal would violate U.S. antitrust law. The merger would create the biggest U.S. credit card issuer by balance and sixth-largest U.S. bank by assets. Capital One and Discover announced their merger plan in February, swiftly drawing calls by some members of Congress for U.S. regulators to block the deal and raising the prospect of months-long antitrust scrutiny. The two companies have defended their proposal, saying it would drive competition in markets for credit cards and for payment processing. Capital One in a statement said it was common for consumers to file lawsuits over proposed mergers and that the case in Virginia "has no merit." Discover did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to comment. The U.S. Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have not taken any formal action to oppose the merger. They declined to comment on the proposed class action, which marked the first private lawsuit over the deal. Discover and American Express both issue credit cards and run their own payment processing systems. Visa and Mastercard operate the country's largest card payment networks, but neither issues cards. The lawsuit said the existence of Discover and American Express puts pressure on rivals to pay out rewards to customers to stay competitive. But after the merger, according to the lawsuit, "this competitive force will greatly diminish." Capital One said in a March regulatory filing that its deal would not harm card competition because the combined entity would still only account for about 13% of credit card purchasing volume. The lawsuit asked the court to either prevent the merger or to require steps such as divesting assets to cure any anticompetitive effects. Last week, the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency held a public meeting addressing the Capital One acquisition plan. The case is Tyler Baker and Lora Grodnick v. Capital One Financial and Discover Financial Services, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, No. 1:24-cv-01265. For plaintiffs: Brian Dunne and Yavar Bathaee of Bathaee Dunne For defendants: No appearances yet [GN] CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Plasse Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Cayla Plasse, individually and on behalf of all others so similarly situated v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2478CV00037 was removed from the Franklin County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 29, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-30095. The crux of Plaintiff's allegations is that Defendant Carrington, the servicer of her mortgage, sent her default and right to cure notices that did not strictly comply with certain acceleration/default notice terms provided for in Plaintiff's mortgage agreement. The Plaintiff further alleges that because the default and right to cure notices were deficient, the foreclosure auction on the property securing her mortgage loan ("Plasse Property") and the foreclosure sale are null and void. Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings two claims against Carrington: declaratory judgment that the foreclosure is null and void as well as in violation of Massachusetts General Laws.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Caroline K. Simons, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 222 Berkeley Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 880-1800 Email: csimons@orrick.com - and - Fredrick S. Levin, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 631 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2-c Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 424-3984 Email: flevin@orrick.com - and - Tianyin N. Luo, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019-6142 Phone: (212) 600-2358 Email: nluo@orrick.com CDK GLOBAL: Court Certifies Vendor's Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports that Chief U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer announced on Tuesday, July 23, that AutoLoop, a prominent software provider serving thousands of dealerships, met the legal criteria to advance its 2018 lawsuit against CDK as a class action. The lawsuit now includes hundreds of other vendors within the auto industry. These vendors accuse CDK of violating antitrust laws by stifling competition. They are collectively seeking estimated damages of $395 million from the Austin, Texas-based CDK, which provides software platforms that are integral to daily dealership operations, including sales, financing and service management, reported Reuters. The class comprises vendors that develop applications for inventory management, repair orders, warranty services and other functions essential to dealer-management systems. According to the plaintiffs, CDK significantly restricted previously broad access to dealer systems, which consequently drove up the costs that AutoLoop and other vendors incur to access necessary data for their applications. The resulting overcharges have reportedly burdened the vendors with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs. Judge Pallmeyer's order paves the way for a trial in Wisconsin, where the lawsuit was originally filed before being consolidated in Illinois. However, no trial date has been set. The court has not yet determined whether to certify a nationwide class of dealers. CDK has consistently denied any wrongdoing. AutoLoop, CDK, and their respective attorneys have not provided immediate comments following the recent ruling. The class-action status granted by Judge Pallmeyer encompasses 244 software vendors who, since October 2013, have purchased data integration services from CDK or one of its competitors, Reynolds & Reynolds, the latter of which is not implicated in this lawsuit. [GN] CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Coulson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AMY COULSON, v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC., and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-02947-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., July 25, 2024) is a class action suing the Defendants for their negligent failure to protect the sensitive and confidential personally identifiable information and personal health information of millions of patients across the United States. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' negligence resulted in the theft for ransom, on Feb. 21, 2024, of the PII and PHI of millions of United States citizens, and left millions of patients unable to obtain their necessary medications for weeks or months. Their negligence also resulted in thousands of hospitals, clinics, doctors, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers going unpaid for weeks or months. Once Defendants became aware of the cyberattack, they immediately shut down their entire network to prevent further damage. This meant that roughly 40 million healthcare transactions went unprocessed every day the system was shut down. Indeed, some services are still not functioning, and others took weeks to return to service, the suit says. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment against Defendants, and seeks all available monetary and equitable relief. Ms. Coulson is a resident and citizen of Arlington, Tennessee in Shelby County. She was unable to purchase medications she relies on to treat serious medical conditions as a result of Defendants' negligence. Change Healthcare operates an enormous clearinghouse that processes between one- third and one-half of all healthcare insurance claims in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@lockaw.com erittergordon@locklaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. Itak Moradi, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com imoradi@saverilawfirm.com CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: GPM Probes Potential Federal Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national class action law firm, today announced that it has commenced an investigation into CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. ("CrowdStrike" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRWD) on behalf of business owners related to the Company's potential violations of state and federal laws. If your business suffered a loss related to the CrowdStrike outage, contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On July 19, 2024, a faulty CrowdStrike software update caused a global outage of Microsoft Windows systems, resulting in what has been described as the "largest IT outage in history." The issue impacted an estimated 8.5 million devices worldwide, causing Windows-based computers and tablets to crash and bringing flights, hospital procedures, and broadcasters to a halt. The outage also crashed essential payment and data systems, leading to financial losses and disruptions for many business owners. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. [GN] DANONE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Listeria Outbreak ---------------------------------------------------------- Aaron D'Andrea, writing for Global News, reports that two class-action lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of plant-based milks recalled in Canada over potential Listeria contamination that has left two people dead. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued the nationwide recall on July 8 for 18 beverages under the Silk and Great Value brands, manufactured by Danone Inc. and Walmart Canada Corp. The agency urged Canadians not to drink the recalled beverages with expiry dates up to and including Oct. 4 over a possible Listeria outbreak, a bacteria commonly found in soil that can cause symptoms like diarrhea, abdominal cramps, nausea and vomiting. In serious cases, it can even cause death -- and two people in Ontario have died from the outbreak. "Canadians should be able to trust that the food and beverages that they consume are safe and do not present a serious risk of harm to individuals," said Saro Turner, partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, a Vancouver-based law firm that filed a class-action lawsuit. "This lawsuit seeks to hold the companies that distributed these allegedly contaminated beverages accountable for their conduct in Canada, and to obtain compensation for individuals who got sick or suffered economic losses." Lawsuits filed in B.C., Quebec Slater Vecchio LLP, which filed the class action in British Columbia Monday against Danone and Walmart Canada, is not the only law firm that has filed litigation. Montreal-based law firm LPC Avocats filed in Quebec on July 18. The proposed class in both lawsuits is for anybody in Canada who purchases the products that were impacted by the recall. The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) says 12 people have fallen ill to date, with 10 cases in Ontario, one in Quebec and the other in Nova Scotia. Nine people have had to be hospitalized, and two have died. Most of the illnesses reported were in adults aged 60 years old or older and in women, PHAC said. Overall, people who have fallen sick in this outbreak are between 37 and 89 years of age. "More recent illnesses may continue to be reported in the outbreak because there is a period between when a person becomes ill and when the illness is reported to public health officials," the agency said. Outbreak is 'unusual': expert Lori Burrows, professor of biochemistry and biomedical sciences at McMaster University, recently told Global News the outbreak was not ordinary. "The unusual thing about this is the plant-based milk source of the infections, because people . . . think of plant-based milks as kind of a healthy alternative," Burrows said. Lawrence Goodridge, director of the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety at the University of Guelph, said Listeria can be found everywhere in the soil, but he "can't recall another time where there was an outbreak linked to plant-based milks." In 2008, Canada experienced its worst listeriosis outbreak, with 57 total cases confirmed and 22 deaths traced back to deli meats produced at a Maple Leaf Foods facility in Toronto. Burrows said the common denominator is "always the processing plant." "These plants are big, they're moving a lot of food through a lot of different lines either slicing them or in this case, transporting them for packaging through hoses or tubes and all of that has to be decontaminated routinely," she said. Milks usually undergo a heat treatment to get rid of potential Listeria or any other bacteria, so it's likely that there was some of kind breakdown in that process, Goodridge said. He said it's also possible that there was some kind of contamination after the heat treatment when the containers were being filled. [GN] DOMA HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Title Resources ---------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, 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 Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 27, 2024. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/doma-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] ECONUGENICS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ECONUGENICS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05638 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.econugenics.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on June 14, 2024, to access the Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase PectaSol Chewables. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the PectaSol Chewables, that the Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, the suit adds. Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products and services the Website offers, and more specifically the PectaSol Chewables, if remedied. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, asserts the suit. Ms. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant offers nutraceutical formulas focused on total-body health, cellular health, immune support, detoxification, and longevity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 EL BANDIDO RESTAURANT: Dutan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Dutan, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. EL Bandido Restaurant, Inc. and Angelica Tello, Case No. 7:24-cv-05717 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay period under NYLL, failure to provide a wage notice upon his hire under NYLL, and any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, or one and one-half the minimum wage rate, whichever is greater, for hours worked in excess of forty hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants paid Plaintiff a fixed weekly salary, in combination of check and cash, without regard to the actual number of hours he worked each workweek. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff often worked more than 10 hours in a single day. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay for each day in which Plaintiff's spread of hours exceeded 10 hours. The Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record-keeping requirements of the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiff and the Collective Action Plaintiffs daily and weekly, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from 1983 until November, 2023. EL Bandido Restaurant Inc., operates restaurants located in Spring Valley and Middletown, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com ELMA ELECTRONIC INC: Pardillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elma Electronic, Inc. The case is styled as Rey Pardillo, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Elma Electronic, Inc., Case No. 24CV085186 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 29, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Elma Electronic -- https://www.elma.com/en -- is a global leader in embedded computing solutions including integrated chassis systems, board products, modular enclosures, equipment cabinets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: edwin@calljustice.com ERPICO LANDSCAPING: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erpico Landscaping, Inc. The case is styled as Eduardo Corona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Erpico Landscaping, Inc., Case No. 24CV084951 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Erpico Landscaping, Inc. -- https://goserpico.com/ -- provide full-service commercial landscaping, irrigation, enhancement, and tree care service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. WORK LAWYERS PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Unit 300 Torrance, CA 90505-3682 Phone: 310-248-2944 Fax: 213-784-0032 EVOLUTIONS HAIR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Wahab Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EVOLUTIONS HAIR SALON, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05641 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.curlevolution.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 20, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to the Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase Olaplex Shampoo, the suit says. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the Olaplex Shampoo that the Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products and services the Website offers, and more specifically the Olaplex Shampoo, if remedied, the suit says. Ms. Wahab is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant specializes in curly hair care through their salon services and product line.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 FALCETTI PIANOS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Valencia Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FALCETTI PIANOS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05628 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.falcettipianos.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on March 20, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a piano (Yamaha NU1X). Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing a piano (Yamaha NU1X), that the Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website. Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products and services the Website offers, and more specifically a piano (Yamaha NU1X), if remedied, the suit says. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Valencia is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant offers a wide selection of new and used pianos from top brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 FCA US: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to File Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as PERRY BEENEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, C.A. No.: 22-00518-TMH (D. Del.), The Honorable Todd M. Hughes of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended class action complaint. Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint was previously dismissed on October 20, 2023. After reviewing all the filings submitted in connection with the Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' proposed amendments would be futile and would not survive a motion to dismiss, and therefore Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint should be denied. In particular, Plaintiffs continue to fail to show that customers are not told what the destination charge is and that the dealer is actually charged less than the listed destination charge, the Court notes. Thus, as the Court found previously, Plaintiffs are told the actual destination charge charged by the manufacturer to the dealer. The Court agrees with the Defendant that, at best, Plaintiffs cite several third-party articles or other statements, none made by Defendant, that customers have been told that destination charges do not include profits. But none of these third-party articles or statements show that Defendant itself has made deceptive statements or not accurately listed the destination charge it charges to the dealers, the Court states. Moreover, Plaintiffs continue to fail to establish any injury, even if the destination charge could be considered deceptive, the Court finds. The Court points out Plaintiffs are fully informed of the destination charge and the manufacturer's suggested retail price and, as is common in the industry, are free to negotiate a final price regardless of the listed MSRP and destination charge. Plaintiffs' suggestion that they could have negotiated a different final price is, once more, entirely speculative, the Court says. As the Court noted in its prior memorandum opinion dismissing Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint, and considering the supplemental briefing provided by the parties, other courts have similar found claims like these insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated July 17, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uzgaeW FCA US: Settles Engine Defect Class Action Suit for $6-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that FCA and Cummins agreed to a $6 million Dodge Ram settlement to resolve claims that the trucks' diesel engines were defective. The settlement benefits purchasers and lessors of new 2013-2015 Dodge Ram 2500 or 3500 trucks with Cummins Diesels who purchased their vehicles between Nov. 26, 2014 and July 13, 2016, in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Drivers in the engine defect class action lawsuit claim that the Cummins diesel engines in certain Dodge Ram trucks are defective. The selective catalytic reduction system in these engines allegedly fails to perform as advertised resulting in emissions-related defects. Cummins is a diesel engine and generator manufacturer that supplies engines to car manufacturers such as FCA. FCA US LLC and Cummins haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $6 million to resolve the engine defect class action lawsuit. Under the Dodge Ram settlement terms, class members can receive a pro rata share for each eligible truck they own or lease. Each payment is estimated to be $100.40. Class members will receive higher payments if they own or lease more than one eligible vehicle. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 21, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 10, 2024. No claim form is required to benefit from the Dodge Ram settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Who's Eligible Purchasers and lessors of new 2013-2015 Dodge Ram 2500 or 3500 trucks with Cummins Diesel between Nov. 26, 2014 and July 13, 2016 in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Potential Award $100.40 Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion Deadline 08/21/2024 Case Name Raymo, et al. v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-12168-TGB-SDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Final Hearing 10/10/2024 Settlement Website 2500-3500DieselsCRSettlement.com Claims Administrator Raymo et al. v. FCA US LLC and Cummins Inc. c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91227 Seattle, WA 98111 info@2500-3500dieselscrsettlement.com Telephone: (844) 633-0696 Class Counsel Jeffrey A Soble Lauren M Loew Michael D Leffel FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Defense Counsel Stephen A D'Aunoy Thomas L Azar Jr Fred J Fresard Ian Kennedy Edwards KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD [GN] FERRARA CANDY: Orozco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeannine Orozco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-06587 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff is entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not include Defendant's shift differentials and bonuses as required by the FLSA. For example, Plaintiff's pay stub for the pay period beginning February 12, 2024 through February 18, 2024 shows 61.75 hours of work, a base hourly rate of $32.42, and gross earnings of $2,265.00, inclusive of shift differential pay. However, her $48.63 overtime rate did not account for the extra payments and, therefore, violated the FLSA. As a result of these prima facie FLSA violations, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 2000 through March 2024. The Defendant was founded in 1908 and became a world leader in the manufacture and marketing of candy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan Higday, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: mh@melmedlaw.com jm@melmedlaw.com FLEX-N-GATE LLC: Shepherd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher Shepherd and Bryant Davis, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. FLEX-N-GATE LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; FLEX-N-GATE PLASTICS LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; and FLEX-N-GATE CHICAGO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2024 CH 05876 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 29, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06600. The Plaintiffs allege that a violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA") occurred when third-party medical professionals asked Plaintiffs about family histories of heart disease, diabetes, and/or cancer while collecting information during Plaintiffs' pre-employment job application health exams. The Plaintiffs allege that Flex-N-Gate did not tell them to refuse to answer any of those questions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: J. David Duffy, Esq. Dremain T. Moore, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 55 East Monroe Street, 37th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312 346 7500 Fax: 312 580 2201 Email: dduffy@thompsoncoburn.com dmoore@thompsoncoburn.com FOLEY HOAG: Modny Sues Over $50,000 Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- On July 24, a proposed class action was filed in the Southern District of New York against Biglaw firm Foley Hoag. The firm, which made $302,525,000 in gross revenue last year making it 125th on the Am Law 200, is accused by a former IT employee of not paying $50,000 in overtime accrued over the course of 46 weeks. Plaintiff Gregory Modny says he was instructed by the firm to stop recording overtime, and the hours would be repayed in "comp time." Modny's attorney, Kelly L. O'Connell, said, "It's a very unfortunate situation in that the partners there allowed this to get out of hand, but at no time did they correct it." Also named as a defendant is Modny's former supervisor, Gary Leshinski (Leshinski currently works for Goulston & Storrs). According to the complaint, Leshinski also allegedly participated in problematic behavior. As reported by Law.com: In the meantime, Modny claimed Foley Hoag employees made threatening remarks against him for reporting acts of discrimination and harassment by his manager and other firm employees. Such instances included Leshinski's alleged mocking of a co-worker with a heart condition, Leshinski's ageist comments about two firm partners, and a partner's disparaging comments about Russia, where Modny was raised. Foley Hoag COO Diane Scheffler told Modny in January 2023 that she was aware of Leshinski's behavior, the complaint stated. Modny was then asked by Leshinski and regional IT manager Peter Hakim to provide negative information on his colleague with a heart condition to get the colleague terminated. Having declined the request, Modny continued to report the bullying until Leshinski and the firm's human resources department told him to stop. Modny further alleges Leshinski retaliated by changing the scope of his tasks to include climbing a "rickety" ladder to restart network systems. Modny says he was asked to do this multiple times and in June of 2023 fell from the ladder. As a result of his injuries from that incident, Modny says he was "effectively terminated" from his position. Foley Hoag has not commented on the lawsuit. [GN] GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Cereal's Toxic Lead Levels ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Mills faces a class action lawsuit alleging that the popular Cocoa Puffs cereal contains levels of lead that exceed safety limits, which could put children and other consumers at risk of lead poisoning. The complaint (PDF) was filed by Mark Tob in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 19, seeking class action status to pursue damages on behalf of consumers nationwide who have purchased Cocoa Puffs without being made aware of the high lead levels. Lead Poisoning Risks Lead is a toxic heavy metal that can cause permanent brain damage, nervous system injuries, cognitive impairment, physical disabilities, or other long-term health consequences. Children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, as they are still developing and do not usually show exposure signs or symptoms. While short-term exposure can cause headaches, abdominal pain, headaches, vomiting, or other minor symptoms, longer exposure may result in more severe symptoms, including lethargy, muscular weakness, confusion, or tremors. According to pediatricians, there is no safe lead exposure level for children, and any exposure may increase the risk of developing serious or permanent injuries, or even death. Tobin, of California, indicates in his lawsuit that independent laboratory testing has revealed that one cup (36 grams) of Cocoa Puff contain .432 micrograms (mcg) of lead. California's Proposition 65, which regulates maximum allowable dose levels (MADL) for toxic chemicals in products sold in that state, sets a .5 mcg per day limit on lead. Prop 65 requires companies doing business in California to warn consumers about potential exposure to lead and other chemicals linked to an increased risk of cancer, birth defects, or reproductive problems. Although the amounts of lead in Cocoa Puff cereal was just below .5 mcg, Tobin's lawsuit points out that most consumers eat far more than one cup per serving. "According to a study conducted by Consumer Reports regarding Cereal Portion Control, 92% of survey participants exceeded the recommended serving size," the lawsuit states. "Depending on the bowl size, consumers exceeded the serving size by between 24% and 132% for a non-dense cereal, such as the products." The lawsuit notes that the Cocoa Puffs lead contamination can result in typical consumers being exposed to anywhere from .532 mcg to .996 mcg of lead per bowl of cereal. Tobin does not claim to be physically injured by consuming the cereal, but contends he and other consumers would not have purchased Cocoa Puffs if General Mills had been honest in revealing the lead exposure risks. He claims General Mills intentionally misled consumers about the lead content of the cereal in order to maximize profits at the expense of public safety. The Cocoa Puffs class action lawsuit presents claims of unfair and unlawful business practices, deceptive advertising practices, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act of California. [GN] HARBOR FREIGHT: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-02974 (D. Minn., July 25, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Website (www.harborfreight.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 its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the 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 the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks 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 Defendant offers tools, construction supplies, and accessories for sale including but not limited to, hand tools, power tools, tool storage, automotive, plumbing, electrical supplies, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HATCH BABY: Durst Sues Over Unsafe First Generation Sound Machine ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS DURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HATCH BABY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06307 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Hatch Baby 1st Generation Sound Machine devices were unfit for their intended use because the product's power adapter can come off when removing them from the power outlet, leaving the power prongs exposed and posing a shock hazard to consumers. Each of the products was manufactured by the Defendant, distributed to other corporations and then sold to consumers across the United States. The products were sold from January 2019 through September 2022 primarily on Hatch.co, Amazon.com, and at BuyBuyBaby, Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, Pottery Barn Kids and BestBuy stores nationwide and from January 2019 through May 2024 on Amazon.com. Through marketing and sale, the Defendant represented that the Products are safe and effective for their intended use as a low background sound machine to prevent distractions, encourage focus and help babies sleep at night, the lawsuit claims. At the time of their purchases, the Defendant didn't notify the Plaintiff, and similarly situated consumers, of the Product's risk of shock hazard through the product labels, instructions, ingredients list, other packaging, advertising, or in any other manner, in violation of the state and federal law. Because the Plaintiff was injured by the Products and all consumers purchased the worthless and dangerous Products, which they purchased under the presumption that the Products were safe, they have suffered losses. As a result of these losses, the Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff purchased the Products in or around the years 2019 & 2021. The Defendant produces, markets and distributes Sound Machines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com - and - John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 Facsimile: (800) 867-6779 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Engine Security Class Suit for $145-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Arnia of Home At Last reports that in 2024, a major class action lawsuit against Hyundai and Kia reached a settlement due to a significant security flaw in their vehicles manufactured between 2011 and 2022. These cars lacked an engine immobilizer, a key security feature that prevents car theft. This issue became widely known due to viral videos on social media showing how to start these cars without a key. Read on to learn about the settlement, who is eligible, and how much compensation affected owners can receive. Hyundai-Kia Class Action Lawsuit 2024 What Happened? The class action lawsuit was filed against Hyundai-Kia by New York City, along with other cities, after a wave of car thefts fueled by social media. Videos showed how to start certain Hyundai and Kia models using USB cables and screwdrivers, exploiting the lack of an engine immobilizer. This security flaw led to a significant increase in car thefts, prompting legal action. The Settlement In response to the lawsuit, Hyundai-Kia agreed to a settlement. If the court grants final approval, affected car owners will receive compensation. This settlement includes funds ranging from $80 to $145 million to cover the losses and provide security upgrades. Hyundai-Kia Class Action Lawsuit Settlement What Does the Settlement Include? The settlement provides compensation to car owners affected by the lack of an engine immobilizer. It covers various expenses, including: 1. Enhanced security features and software upgrades for the affected vehicles. 2. Reimbursement for expenses related to car theft and damages. Compensation Details The settlement outlines specific compensation amounts for different types of losses: Vehicle Theft: Owners will be reimbursed 60% of the black book value of their car if it was stolen. Damage from Theft Attempt: Owners will receive 33% of the damage costs or $3,375 per incident. Towing and Penalties: Up to $250 will be compensated for costs related to towing or penalties from the theft. Insurance Deductibles: $375 will be paid to cover insurance deductibles due to theft attempts. Hyundai-Kia Class Action Lawsuit Payment Dates Important Dates The lawsuit was filed in 2022, and a preliminary settlement was reached in mid-2023. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2024. Claim submissions for eligible class members must be completed by January 11, 2024. After this date, the claim processing and distribution of settlement benefits will begin. Hyundai-Kia Class Action Lawsuit Eligibility News Who is Eligible? Individuals who purchased certain Hyundai or Kia models in the United States are eligible for the settlement. The eligible models include: -- Kia Forte: 2011-2021 -- Kia K5: 2021-2022 -- Kia Optima: 2011-2020 -- Kia Rio: 2012-2021 -- Kia Sedona: 2011-2021 -- Kia Seltos: 2021-2022 -- Kia Sorento: 2011-2022 -- Kia Soul: 2020-2022 -- Kia Sportage: 2011-2022 Eligible individuals can receive compensation either through a software upgrade (where applicable) or monetary compensation. How Pomona HUG Aims to Help Residents with Monthly $500 Payments The Hyundai-Kia class action lawsuit highlights the importance of vehicle security and the impact of social media on public safety. The settlement provides affected owners with financial compensation and security upgrades to prevent further thefts. By staying informed and understanding the details of this settlement, car owners can ensure they receive the compensation they deserve. [GN] JRD 570: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Gaspa Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jrd 570, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-07980 (D.N.J., July 24, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to make its website, https://www.jacquelineeveningwear.com, accessible to Plaintiff and other legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visit to the Website, on April 10, 2024, she attempted to purchase a dress from the Defendant. Despite being interested in their collection, she encountered significant accessibility issues on the website, which hindered her ability to efficiently select and purchase an appropriate dress. The Plaintiff was unable to use and enjoy the Website in the same manner as sighted individuals do, preventing the Plaintiff from using the Website. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.2 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant offers a wide selection of cocktail dresses, evening gowns, suits, party dresses, and prom dresses.[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 KROGER CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 1:24-cv-05600 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.fredmeyerjewelers.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 23, 2024, to access the Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop Men's Bulova Archive Watch, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to the Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the watch. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, the suit asserts. 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. Kroger is an in-store and online grocery retailer that specializes in the production and distribution of food and non-food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com LOBLAW COS: Settles Bread Price-Fixing Class Action For $500-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sammy Hudes, writing for CTV News, reports that Loblaw Cos. Ltd. and its parent company George Weston Ltd. say they have agreed to pay $500 million to settle a pair of class-action lawsuits regarding their involvement in an alleged bread price-fixing scheme. "We are pleased to be able to put this issue behind us at both Loblaw and George Weston," said Loblaw chief financial officer Richard Dufresne on an earnings call Thursday, July 25. The class-action cases were brought against a group of companies that includes Loblaw and the Weston companies, Metro, Walmart Canada, Giant Tiger, Sobeys and bakery supplier Canada Bread Co. They alleged the defendants conspired to fix the price of packaged bread in Canada, and were filed on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased packaged bread after Nov. 1, 2001. In a press release, George Weston said it would pay $247.5 million in cash, while Loblaw would pay $252.5 million, made up of $156.5 million in cash and credit for $96 million previously paid to customers by Loblaw under the Loblaw Card program. Loblaw chairman Galen Weston, who is also chairman and chief executive of George Weston, said "this behaviour should never have happened." "On behalf of the Weston group of companies, we are sorry for the price-fixing behaviour we discovered and self-reported in 2015," he said in a statement. "We have the privilege of serving Canadians from coast to coast. That privilege needs to be earned each and every day. Reaching a settlement on this matter was the right thing to do in response to previous behaviour that did not meet our values and ethical standards." Loblaw president and CEO Per Bank added the grocer would seek to "earn (Canadians') trust whenever and wherever they choose to shop with us." "We will continue to work hard to deliver on that commitment," he said in the press release. Loblaw reported that its second-quarter earnings fell 10 per cent, attributing the decline to the class-action settlement. Dufresne said the settlement will not affect prices for customers. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said the payout, subject to court approval, is the largest antitrust settlement in Canadian history. "This is a significant milestone in Canadian class action history and sends a strong message that conduct that harms consumers will not be tolerated," said Jay Strosberg, managing partner of Strosberg Wingfield Sasso LLP, in a separate press release. The lawyers said their focus will now shift to preparing for trial in the ongoing class actions against Canada Bread, Sobeys, Metro, Walmart Canada and Giant Tiger. The plaintiffs accused the companies of participating in a 14-year industry-wide price-fixing conspiracy between 2001 and 2015 leading to an artificial increase in packaged bread prices. The Competition Bureau began investigating alleged bread price-fixing in January 2016. Weston Foods and Loblaw, both subsidiaries of George Weston at the time, had previously admitted their participation in an "industry-wide price-fixing arrangement" and received immunity from prosecution in exchange for co-operating. At least $1.50 was added to the price of a loaf of bread, the bureau alleged in court documents in 2018. In June 2023, Canada Bread was fined $50 million after pleading guilty to four counts of price-fixing bread products under the Competition Act. The Competition Bureau called it the highest price-fixing fine ever imposed by a Canadian court. In its statement of defence in the Ontario class action file last October, Canada Bread denied participating in a wide-ranging conspiracy to fix the price of bread, and denied profiting from the alleged conspiracy or from the price increases it admitted to. Metro submitted a statement of defence and cross-claim to the Ontario Superior Court late last year accusing Loblaw and George Weston of conspiring to implicate the rival grocer. Metro denied being involved in bread price-fixing and accused the companies of trying to spread the blame across the industry and avoid public perception that Loblaw was the sole retailer involved in price-fixing. Sobeys also filed a statement of defence and cross-claim in the class action and has said it was falsely implicated. Walmart Canada has also denied conspiring to fix the price of bread or violating the Competition Act, while Giant Tiger said it did not participate or know about the alleged conspiracy. [GN] MAERCKER SCHOOL: Faces Franzone Suit Over Age Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBORAH FRANZONE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION MAERCKER SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 60, DR. SEAN NUGENT, DR. ALLISTER SCOTT, AND MAUREEN KIDD, Case No. 1:24-cv-06285 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2024) is a class action seeking redress for discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (the "Act"); retaliation under the Act; violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act; and hostile work environment. Beginning January of 2019, the Plaintiff started in the certified nurse position and was placed on the teacher's union salary schedule, having previously been support staff as a building RN from 2010-2018, a position she was paid hourly for. When the Plaintiff started her new position, and according to the district evaluation procedure, once her contract began she was supposed to receive a mentor and multiple observations (formal and informal), along with meetings throughout the year with her evaluator. Additionally, the Plaintiff should have had a mid-year formative and end of year summative review. During the 2020-2021 school year, the Defendant and union waived evaluations per an MOE. The Plaintiff was never given a mentor or name of her evaluator. The Plaintiff continued working her job as a Certified Nurse and performing at a high level including receiving many awards and accolades. In or around December of 2021, the Plaintiff completed her first class for her master's degree and notified Superintendent Nugent's administrative assistant. On Jan. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted her transcripts for a lane change on the pay scale. On Jan. 24, 2022, Superintendent Nugent emailed the Plaintiff requesting a meeting about "clarity on previous credits." The Plaintiff and Superintendent Nugent met, and the Plaintiff was denied a lane movement on the pay scale. After the Plaintiff made complaints, the Defendant allegedly treated her differently in retaliation for the same. The Plaintiff was terminated on March 2023. Younger individuals were not terminated, were treated more favorably, and replaced the Plaintiff in her nursing position. The Plaintiff was employed with the Defendant beginning in the school year commencing in 2010 until she was unlawfully terminated in March of 2023. The Plaintiff's position with the Defendant was Certified Nurse/RN at Westview Hills Middle School. The Board of Education Maercker School District is a public school district managing multiple schools in DuPage County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Kreamer, Esq. Joseph Urani, Esq. THE KREAMER LAW GROUP, LLC 1100 East Warrenville Road, Suite 135 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 857-3609 Facsimile: (630) 946-6373 E-mail: jckreamer@kreamerlawgroup.com MCG HEALTH: Settles Data Security Class Suit for $8.8 Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------- The Seattle, WA-based software company, MCG Health, has proposed a $8.8 million settlement to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit stemming from a February 2020 data breach that involved the protected health information of 793,283 individuals. It took MCG Health two years to discover that a threat actor had obtained data from its network, with that determination made on March 25, 2022. Patients of at least 10 of its clients had information compromised in the incident including names, Social Security numbers, medical codes, postal addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of birth. Several class action lawsuits were filed in response to the breach that made similar claims and alleged negligence, invasion of privacy, bailment, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington -- In re: MCG Health Data Security Issue Litigation. MCG Health has not admitted any wrongdoing and chose to settle the lawsuit to avoid further legal costs and the uncertainty of trial. Under the terms of the settlement, $8.8 million will be made available to cover legal costs, attorneys' fees, and claims from individuals who had their sensitive data compromised in the incident. Class members may submit claims of up to $1,500 to cover documented data breach-related ordinary expenses, and claims may be submitted for up to $10,000 to cover extraordinary losses such as identity theft and fraud, making the total potential award $11,500 per claimant. Class members can choose to receive a cash payment in lieu of submitting claims for reimbursement of losses. The cash payments will be paid pro rata after administrative costs, attorneys' fees ($2,930,000), service awards ($2,500), and claims have been paid. Should those costs exceed the total settlement value, claims will be paid pro rata and cash payments will not be paid. The settlement also includes three years of three-bureau credit monitoring services through Kroll. The deadline for exclusion from and objection to the settlement is August 29, 2024, claims must be submitted no later than September 30, 2024, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for September 13, 2024. The class was represented by Jason T. Dennett of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, and Adam Polk of Girard Sharp LLP. [GN] MINNESOTA GASTROENTEROLOGY: Fails to Secure Info, Castillon Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARITA CASTILLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MINNESOTA GASTROENTEROLOGY, P.A. d/b/a MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, Case No. 0:24-cv-02915-JWB-DLM (D. Minn., July 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to use security practices that would protect the Plaintiff and Class members' Private Information, thus resulting in unauthorized third-party access to the Plaintiff and Class members' Private Information. On Aug. 25, 2023, the Defendant learned that a vulnerability in their computer networks was exploited. The Data Breach compromised patients' names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state identification numbers, passport numbers, dates of birth, medical information and health insurance information, payment card information, and account numbers. The Data Breach allegedly affected 765,936 patients, including the Plaintiff and Class members, who entrusted their Private Information to the Defendant. On July 15, 2024, the Defendant sent a breach notification letter to affected patients. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has and will continue to spend time trying to mitigate the consequences of the Data Breach. This includes time spent verifying the legitimacy of communications related to the Data Breach, and self-monitoring their accounts and credit reports to ensure no fraudulent activity has occurred, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience because of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of their privacy. This time has been lost forever and cannot be recaptured. The harm caused to Plaintiff cannot be undone, the suit adds. Plaintiff Margarita Castillon (previously Margarita Castillon Sanroman) is a citizen and resident of Minnesota. The Defendant provides medical services related to gastroenterology, with locations throughout the Minneapolis area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com MNGI DIGESTIVE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Moalimyusuf Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAID MOALIMYUSUF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.  MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, Case No. 27-CV-24-11091 (Minn. Dist., July 24, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. This failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in an August 2023 data breach highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of MNGI. Despite learning of the Data Breach on Aug. 25, 2023 and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach on Aug. 20, 2023, the Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until July 15, 2024, the Plaintiff avers. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of current and former employees and patients, including the Plaintiff(s). This Private Information included names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state identification numbers, passport numbers, dates of birth, medical information and health insurance information, payment card information, and account numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff(s) and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff(s) and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff(s) and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft. The Plaintiff(s) seek remedies including compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. MNGI is an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment to individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 641-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com MONSANTO CORP: Federal Court Dismisses Weed Killers' Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kristian Silva, writing ABC News, reports that a major class action against weedkiller Roundup claiming exposure to the product causes cancer has been dismissed in Federal Court. The court found there was insufficient evidence to prove the product's active ingredient caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. What's next? The court acknowledged there were mixed views in the scientific community about the risks of Roundup, and said further research could provide a more definitive answer. There is insufficient evidence to prove the controversial weedkiller Roundup causes cancer, the Federal Court has ruled. Roundup's parent companies Monsanto and Bayer were taken to court in a major class action, with hundreds of Australians claiming their exposure to the product's active ingredient, glyphosate, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. After hearing evidence in a lengthy trial, Justice Michael Lee said on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the products caused cancer. Justice Lee acknowledged there were mixed views in the scientific community about the risks of Roundup, and said further research could provide a more definitive answer. "One thing is plain -- the science is not all one way," he said. The judge said none of the scientific studies presented at the trial led him to conclude there was "clear and compelling" evidence that glyphosate caused cancer in mammals. The lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer has now been dismissed. Glyphosate has been hailed as transformative for farmers, weed sprayers and gardeners but there has also been widespread debate about its safety. About 500 glyphosate products are currently approved in Australia. Latest in a string of legal battles The current lawsuit, brought by plaintiff Kelvin McNickle and backed by Maurice Blackburn, alleged the weedkiller was carcinogenic and that its manufacturers were negligent about risks the product posed to customers. Mr McNickle, who is in his early 40s, developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after two decades of exposure to glyphosate while working for his family's vegetation management business in Queensland. About 800 others joined Mr McNickle's class action lawsuit. Outside court on Thursday, July 25, Bayer's crop science director Warren Inwood hailed the result as a win for Australian farmers. "These products underpin sustainable farming systems and support farmers in doing what they do best -- putting food on the tables of Australians every day," he said. In a statement, Maurice Blackburn said it was "carefully reviewing the judgement", stopping short of declaring it would lodge an appeal. Roundup's manufacturers, who insist the product is safe, have been locked in legal battles with class action litigants in Australia since 2019. Bayer has also been the subject of numerous legal cases in the United States. In 2020, it paid out $US10.9 billion ($16.6 billion) to settle 95,000 Roundup lawsuits. However, Bayer claims it has won 14 of its previous 20 cases at trial, and has vowed to appeal recent US losses where it was ordered to pay out a combined $1.1 billion in damages. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer said glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to humans", based on what it described as "limited" evidence of cancer in people. But two years later the local regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), said it believed the chemical was not cancer-causing from its analysis of scientific research. In November 2023, the European Commission voted to approve glyphosate usage for another decade, although not all members states agreed to back the proposal. Andrew Weidemann, the southern director of Grain Producers Australia, said he had used the herbicide for nearly 40 years and believed it was safe. "It's one of the greatest tools invested in my time of farming," he said. If Roundup was banned, Mr Weidemann said he feared for the future of food production. The APVMA said it noted Justice Lee's decision and would continue to monitor the science around glyphosate. The regulator said it would take "appropriate action" if new evidence showed the chemical posed a risk to the community, industries or environment. [GN] MORGAN & MORGAN: Defends 'Botched' Injury Claims Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- William Rabb, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Morgan & Morgan calls itself the nation's largest injury law firm, with offices in most states. But perhaps the Orlando-founded firm has grown too big, too quickly, suggests a proposed class-action lawsuit that claims the firm has botched hundreds of cases and had operated illegally in Georgia. "The law in this state prohibits entities from bringing and maintaining civil suits if they are not registered to transact business in this state with the Georgia Secretary of State," reads the complaint filed on behalf of the lead plaintiff, a deputy sheriff who was badly injured when his patrol car was rear-ended by a car traveling 114 mph. Deputy Brandon Walker, of Glynn County, Georgia, said in the lawsuit that he called Morgan & Morgan after he was contacted by the at-fault driver's insurance company, which offered only the policy limits -- less than $25,000. Walker was told his case would be handled out of Morgan's Brunswick, Georgia, office, then by the firm's Savannah team. Walker's suit argues that Morgan was not properly registered with the state when it claimed local lawyers were involved. The lawsuit also alleges that Walker had very little contact with any lawyer from the Morgan firm. When Morgan attorneys did communicate, they erroneously told him he would need to quit his job to be eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits. When he said he couldn't leave his job, the Morgan law firm took no action, allowing the one-year statute of limitations on the comp claim to lapse, the suit contends. It gets worse, the complaint notes. After the deputy's group health insurance carrier, the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia, paid for some of his medical treatment, the association sought $17,319 in reimbursement from Walker, from the at-fault motorist's auto insurance payout. Morgan lawyers went ahead and paid this amount on behalf of Walker, the suit contends. The complaint and an affidavit from a workers' compensation expert witness maintains that the subrogation likely would not have been pursued if a workers' comp carrier had been involved. "This claim should have been paid by the worker's compensation carrier. The comp carrier would not have had a viable subrogation interest; therefore, Mr. Walker would have had $17,318.78 more net funds in settlement," reads the statement by workers' comp attorney Bruce Edwards, of Douglas, Georgia. Although some insurers may request that claimants leave their employment as part of a comp settlement, that's only done in some cases, Edwards said. And even then, a claimant has options. Other Georgia workers' compensation attorneys said Tuesday that it is common for employees to be asked to resign as part of a workers' comp settlement, but not before a claim is filed. They also agreed that comp insurance would have paid for most of the medical, and would not have sought subrogation from the claimant. In other respects, Morgan failed to explore other sources of compensation for Walker, who will need surgery and other care in coming years, the suit charges: The Morgan firm did not investigate enough to show that the errant driver was a severe diabetic and, despite a previous accident, was never advised by his physicians to refrain from driving. All of that is considered a breach of the legal standard of care for attorneys, the lawsuit claims. Morgan & Morgan representatives could not be reached for comment Tuesday. The firm has not yet answered the complaint or filed a motion to dismiss. A lawyer with Bradley Arant, the firm representing Morgan in the case, downplayed the suit's significance. "This case is meritless and we intend to provide a vigorous defense," said Justin Gunter, partner with Bradley in Atlanta. The Walker lawsuit, led by Savannah lawyer Brent Savage, argues that many others in Georgia have been misled and ill-represented by Morgan & Morgan. The number of potential class members is so numerous that individual claims would be impractical and would swamp the court system. The suit, removed to federal court in southern Georgia by Morgan, asks for more than $5 million in damages, plus punitive damages and attorney fees and expenses. "The defendants have been stubbornly litigious, acted in bad faith, and caused plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expenses, entitling plaintiff to recover for litigation costs and attorney's fees . . . " the complaint notes. It acknowledges that, like many class-action lawsuits, the ultimate payout per class member may be small "relative to the complexity of litigation." Morgan & Morgan has earned the ire of many property insurers and insurance defense attorneys, especially in Florida. Last year, the firm's attorneys sent notice to Florida defense lawyers that they were about to file tens of thousands of insurance claims lawsuits in the days just before a Florida tort-reform law took effect. And this is not the first time that Walker's attorney has tangled with the Morgan law firm. In 2023, Savage filed a similar malpractice lawsuit against Morgan & Morgan in a personal injury claim. It was only after that suit was filed, Savage argues, that Morgan registered as a business with the Georgia Secretary of State -- long after it had begun representing Georgia clients in legal matters. Part of that case is pending before the Georgia Court of Appeals. [GN] MOSES H. CONE: Faces Patient Data Sharing Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital and parent company Cone Health face a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the entities have secretly disclosed patients' medical information to Facebook and Google. The 131-page privacy lawsuit alleges the North Carolina-based health network's web properties, ConeHealth.com and MyChart.ConeHealth.com, intentionally utilize invisible pieces of code that intercept and record every movement a patient makes on the sites. The tracking technologies -- which currently include several tools developed by Google -- subsequently share the collected data with the third-party tech giant for advertising purposes, the complaint contends. Per the suit, Cone Health also used similar data collection tools from Facebook on its online platforms from around September 2016 to July 2022. The case charges that Cone Health has violated HIPAA privacy rules and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act by failing to obtain consumers' consent before tracking and exposing their private information to unrelated third parties. "Cone Health did so because it knew that this sensitive information had tremendous value and that [the] plaintiff and class members would not consent to the collection, disclosure and use of their private information if they were provided a choice or would demand significant compensation," the filing argues. According to the complaint, these transmissions include data shared by consumers while using Cone Health's website and patient portal for purposes such as communicating with healthcare providers, scheduling appointments, searching for doctors, accessing medical records and test results, or researching medical conditions and treatment options. "Transmitting the private information allows a third party (e.g., Google and/or Meta/Facebook) to know that a specific patient was seeking confidential medical care," the suit stresses. "This type of disclosure could also allow a third party to reasonably infer that a specific patient was being treated for a specific type of medical condition such as cancer, pregnancy or AIDS." In addition, the tracking tools allow third parties to link a patient's online activity with their identity by capturing IP addresses, device identifiers, demographic details, email addresses, phone numbers and more, the suit contends. The case says that certain tools also collected consumers' Facebook IDs, which are strings of numbers the social media platform uses to identify and connect to a user's Facebook profile. The filing notes that Cone Health's alleged data-sharing practices run contrary to promises made in its privacy policy, which states that the health network will refrain from using patients' identifiable health information for marketing purposes without written permission. "Simply put, Cone Health broke those promises again and again," the complaint says, claiming that "potentially millions" of individuals have had their privacy invaded by the defendants. The Cone Health wiretapping lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was disclosed to a third party without authorization or consent through the Google or Facebook tracking tools allegedly embedded into Cone Health's website and patient portal. [GN] MUNICIPAL APPAREL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MUNICIPAL APPAREL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05629 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.municipal.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on June 14, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to the Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a Polo. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the Polo, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products and services the Website offers, and more specifically a Polo, if remedied, the suit says. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ms. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant offers men's and women's clothing, such as hoodies, sweatshirts, t-shirts, polos, outerwear, pants, shorts, and accessories like headwear, socks, and bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 OAKVILLE, ON: Court Approves Overdevelopment Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a settlement for a class action lawsuit filed by Oakville property owners, who alleged that overdevelopment increased flood risk and reduced property values. The class action, led by plaintiff Edwin Banfi, argued that the defendants' development decisions since 1986 expanded the floodplain and heightened flood risks for properties within Burloak Drive, Lake Ontario, Winston Churchill Boulevard, and Dundas Street. The action specifically addressed 1,643 homes within this "Regulatory Flood Hazard" (RFH) area, which are particularly susceptible to flooding during regional storms. The lawsuit initially focused on the impact of flood risk on property values. However, the plaintiff's investigation revealed complications. Many property owners were unaware their properties were in the RFH, and numerous properties were bought and sold multiple times during the class period, making it challenging to determine damages. Moreover, the plaintiff's water resource engineer acknowledged that multiple factors contribute to flood risk, requiring individual property assessments. Given these difficulties, the focus shifted to raising public awareness about RFH risks and initiating flood risk reduction measures. As part of the settlement, the defendants will fund the Oakville Home Flood Education and Protection Program, developed by the Intact Centre. This program will inform homeowners about flood resilience measures and conduct community outreach. Barbara Medeiros was the sole objector to the proposed settlement. She expressed concerns that the settlement did not address existing flooding issues or support individual homeowners with associated costs. However, the plaintiff's counsel concluded that her flooding issues were due to construction deficiencies rather than the expanded floodplain. Consequently, she will be deemed an opt-out, preserving her right to pursue further action. The Superior Court found the settlement fair and reasonable, emphasizing the action's role in elevating public awareness and the benefits of the education and protection program. The court recognized the complexities in determining the cause of the RFH expansion and quantifying individual damages, making a direct monetary distribution to class members impractical. Ultimately, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the proposed settlement, recognizing its benefits in reducing flood risk, promoting access to justice, and encouraging behaviour modification among the defendants. [GN] PLAINVILLE GAMING: Faces Katopodis Suit Over Illegal Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY KATOPODIS, ALAN CASSO, DAVID CARLSON, KIM JOYAL, AND EDWARD PETERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PLAINVILLE GAMING AND REDEVELOPMENT, LLC d/b/a PLAINRIDGE PARK CASINO, Case No. (Court, July 24, 2024) alleges that Defendants violates gaming related laws. The Defendants are doing business in gaming industry.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan M. Albano, Esq. S. Elaine McChesney, Esq. Nathaniel Bruhn, Esq. Emma Diamond Hall, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Telephone: (617) 341-7700 Facsimile: (617) 341-7701 E-mail: jonathan.albano@morganlewis.com elaine.mcchesney@morganlewis.com nathaniel.bruhn@morganlewis.com emma.hall@morganlewis.com RESTORE IT ALL: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Geronimo Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals v. Restore It All, Inc., Constantin Dobrea, Christian Dobrea, and Silvia Svera, individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-00673 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after January 2024, without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff performed as a lineman, installing electrical cable systems and operating heavy construction machinery. The Plaintiff's wage rate was $25.00 an hour. The Plaintiff's overtime should be $37.50 an hour. The Plaintiff worked six days weekly, for a total of 57 hours weekly (Plaintiff has deducted 3 hours corresponding to lunchtime). He was paid for all his hours, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law, the suit alleges. The Defendants fired the Plaintiff on July 15, 2024, due to an injury he suffered while working on June 18, 2024. At the time of his termination, the Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff his last week of work, the suit adds. Plaintiff Geronimo Garcia was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time employee from Jan. 15, 2024, to July 12, 2024, or 25 weeks. However, for FLSA purposes, the Plaintiff's relevant employment period is 23 weeks. The Plaintiff did not work for two weeks after he suffered an injury at work. Restore It All is a construction and restoration company.[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 REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v Hillman ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Matthew E. Orso in his capacity as Court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC dba ZeekRewards.com, Plaintiff, v. Ron Hillman, Case No. 2:24-cv-01270-JAD-DJA (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s motion for substitution of plaintiff. Nationwide explains that Defendant Ron Hillman was a beneficiary of a massive Ponzi scheme called ZeekRewards. The Securities and Exchange Commission shut the scheme down in 2012 and appointed a receiver, Kenneth Bell, to reclaim ill-gotten funds obtained by "net winners" of the scheme like Defendant. Bell filed a class action case in the Western District of North Carolina and ultimately obtained final judgments against thousands of net winners. In 2019, Matthew Orso was appointed as successor receiver. In that role, he sold thousands of final judgments to Nationwide in July of 2019, including the judgment against Defendant. Nationwide asserts that the transfer of interest in the judgments was completed on December 16, 2019. Afterwards, the Western District of North Carolina amended the caption of the final judgment to replace Orso with Nationwide and many courts in the Middle District of Florida have ruled on Nationwide's substitution motions -- like the motion in this case -- and granted them. Judge Albregts notes Federal and Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 25(c) provide for substitution of parties where a transfer of interest has occurred during litigation. Whether to transfer is within the discretion of the Court. The Court finds substitution appropriate. Although not controlling, the numerous federal courts in Florida that have granted Nationwide's substitution requests are persuasive in this case, the Court states. The Court also finds that where the assignee wishes to enforce the judgment, substitution is appropriate and necessary. The Court thus grants Nationwide's motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 18, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0kttMJ REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Fulton ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts of the United States District Court of Nevada granted Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s motion for substitution of plaintiff in the case captioned as Matthew E. Orso in his capacity as Court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC dba ZeekRewards.com, v. Charlie Fulton, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01256-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.). Nationwide explains that Defendant Charlie Fulton was a beneficiary of a massive Ponzi scheme called ZeekRewards. The Securities and Exchange Commission shut the scheme down in 2012 and appointed a receiver, Kenneth Bell, to reclaim ill-gotten funds obtained by "net winners" of the scheme like Defendant. Bell filed a class action case in the Western District of North Carolina and ultimately obtained final judgments against thousands of net winners. In 2019, Matthew Orso was appointed as successor receiver. In that role, he sold thousands of final judgments to Nationwide in July of 2019, including the judgment against Defendant. Nationwide asserts that the transfer of interest in the judgments was completed on December 16, 2019. Afterwards, the Western District of North Carolina amended the caption of the final judgment to replace Orso with Nationwide and many courts in the Middle District of Florida have ruled on Nationwide's substitution motions -- like the motion in this case -- and granted them. Judge Albregts notes Federal and Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 25(c) provide for substitution of parties where a transfer of interest has occurred during litigation. Whether to transfer is within the discretion of the Court. The Court finds substitution appropriate. Although not controlling, the numerous federal courts in Florida that have granted Nationwide's substitution requests are persuasive in this case. The Court also finds that where the assignee wishes to enforce the judgment, substitution is appropriate and necessary. The Court thus grants Nationwide's motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 18, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JU0yd4 RIO TINTO: Bougainville Mine Class Suit Hearing Set October 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that the first hearing date has been set in a class action against miner Rio Tinto (RIO.AX), opens new tab for historical environmental and social damage caused by the Bougainville copper mine in Papua New Guinea that it operated in the 1970s and 1980s, lawyers said. The first court hearing will take place in Papua New Guinea's capital Port Moresby on Oct. 10, according to lawyers representing the claimants. "We are committed to advancing the action against Rio Tinto and BCL on behalf of the class," said Matthew Mennilli, partner at Sydney-based law firm Morris Mennilli in a statement. "We hope to empower claimants after their voices were unheard and ignored for so many years." BCL, or Bougainville Copper Ltd (BOC.AX), opens new tab, ran the Panguna mine in which Rio Tinto held a majority stake. The mine ceased operations in 1989 when related disputes spiralled into a civil war lasting for a decade. A Rio Tinto spokesperson confirmed that it had been served with a class action and that it was reviewing the details of the claim. "As this is an ongoing legal matter, we are unable to comment further at this time," he said. Rio Tinto in 2016 transferred its 53.8% stake in BCL to the Autonomous Bougainville government and the Papua New Guinea government for no amount. The miner in 2022 began work to assess the mine's legacy, hiring an independent group to assess the impact and consult on next steps. It is due to report back to Rio this year. Class actions are increasingly being used by affected populations as a way to access higher compensation from resources companies for damaging events. More than 720,000 Brazilians, including 46 local governments, are suing BHP (BHP.AX), opens new tab and Vale (VALE3.SA), opens new tab in a potential 36 billion pound ($46.5 billion) lawsuit over the 2015 collapse of the Mariana dam. The class action against Rio Tinto is much smaller. It is made up of a majority of villagers in the affected region of Bougainville. A further 1,500 people have joined the class action since it was filed with 3,000 claimants in May. They are seeking compensation for "historical mismanagement of the Panguna Copper Mine, which caused large scale environmental and social harm," according to the statement. [GN] ROANOKE JH: Dogan Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & VWPS ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRA DOGAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ROANOKE JH, LLC, d/b/a Woodland Hills Independent, Assisted Living and Memory Care Community, and RETIREMENT UNLIMITED, INC., Case No. (W.D. Va., July 24, 2024) sues the Defendants for failing to pay employees for all time worked and recorded on employees' timesheets and seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The suit contends that the Plaintiff has sustained lost wages and benefits as a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct. The Defendants are therefore liable under 29 USC section 216 to the Plaintiffs for their unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, and additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and attorney fees and costs. The named Plaintiff asserts an individual claim against the Defendants for failing to properly provide FMLA leave in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. The named Plaintiff further brings an individual claim against the Defendants for wrongfully terminating her health insurance in violation of and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act ("COBRA") and Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in August 2020 as a charge nurse. On Nov. 11, 2023, the Plaintiff's back was injured when the elevator she occupied in the Defendant's building malfunctioned and plummeted to the first floor. On Dec. 26, 2023, the Family Express doctors diagnosed the Plaintiff with a fractured T8 vertebrae along with other nerve injuries due to the accident. Ms. Dogan's FMLA leave started Jan. 5, 2024, but extended retroactively to Nov. 11, 2023, meaning it should have ended on Feb. 3, 2024. After her last day of work in November 2023, the Plaintiff was never given any direction or instruction on how or where to continue paying her portion of her insurance premiums. Woodland Hills operates a facility in Roanoke, Virginia, that takes care of elderly patients and residents staying at the facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Collins, Esq. Mia Yugo, Esq. YUGO COLLINS, PLLC 25 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 861-1529 E-mail: chris@yugocollins.com mia@yugocollins.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Bryant-Booker Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANTISHA BRYANT-BOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SNOWFLAKE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00066-TJC (D. Mont., July 24, 2024) seeks to hold Snowflake responsible for the injuries it inflicted on the Plaintiff and millions of similarly situated persons due to its impermissibly inadequate data security practices, which caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals beginning sometime in April 2024. The data exfiltrated through the Data Breach is highly sensitive, and included personally identifiable information including individuals' full names, address, email address, and Social Security numbers, as well as other sensitive information like auto insurance information, credit card numbers and purchase histories, and online tracking information, including pixel tracking data, device IP addresses, and other sensitive information, the suit says. The identities of the Plaintiff and Class Members are in jeopardy -- all because of Snowflake' negligence. The Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft and must now constantly monitor their financial accounts, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their Private Information, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach, the suit adds. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief -- including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. The Plaintiff is a former customer of AT&T, having ended her relationship with AT&T no later than 2021. Snowflake provides digital warehouses, known as "Snowflake Data Clouds."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Paoli, Esq. PAOLI LAW FIRM, P.C. 257 W. Front St., Suite A Missoula, Montana 59802 Telephone: (406) 542-3330 E-mail: DavidPaoli@paoli-law.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com STEVEN MADDEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Steven Madden Ltd., Case No. 0:24-cv-02940 (D. Minn., July 24, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Website (www.stevemadden.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 its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the 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 the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks 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). Ms. Dalton is a resident of Minnesota, and is disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers shoes, and accessories for sale including but not limited to, sandals, wedges, heels, crossbody bags, shoulder bags, clothing, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Consumers Sue Over Service Plans Price Change ----------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, report that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against T-Mobile USA Inc. Why: Consumers claim that T-Mobile violated its guarantee that certain wireless cell phone service plans had rates that were guaranteed to last for life. Where: The T-Mobile class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. T-Mobile violated its guarantee that the terms of certain wireless cell phone service plans would last for life, a new class action lawsuit alleges. A group of consumers claim T-Mobile switched their cell phone plans earlier this year to a more expensive plan without their consent, despite guaranteeing the plans would either last for life or as long as a customer wanted to remain with it. "T-Mobile has reneged on its promises to its customers and raised rates for all the plans with rates that were promised to be guaranteed for life," the T-Mobile class action says. The group of consumers want to represent a nationwide class and subclasses of consumers in Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey who entered into a T-Mobile ONE Plan, Simple-Choice plan, Magenta, Magenta Max, Magenta 55 +, Magenta Amplified or Magenta Military Plan with T-Mobile that included a promise of a lifetime price guarantee and who had their price increased without their consent. T-Mobile promised rates for T-Mobile ONE plans to never change, class action claims The consumers argue T-Mobile introduced the T-Mobile ONE wireless cell phone service plans -- which the company referred to as an "un-contract" -- in 2017, at which time the carrier allegedly promised the plans’ rates would never be changed. In 2020, however, T-Mobile completed a merger with Sprint, at which time the former pledged not to raise rates on its phone plans for three years, according to the T-Mobile class action. "Now that the three years have elapsed and the wireless network landscape has continued to contract leaving consumers with less choices," the T-Mobile class action says. Consumers argue T-Mobile is guilty of common law fraud and common law false advertising and negligent misrepresentation, and of violating New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade PRactices and Consumer Protection Law. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request injunctive relief and an award of actual damages for themselves and all class members. Mediation for a class action lawsuit revolving T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint failed earlier this year. The complaint argues T-Mobile forced mostly minority-owned stores to close in the wake of the merger, despite telling Congress and the public it would be opening hundreds of stores. Did T-Mobile raise your cell phone plan rate after promising not to? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Bruce H. Nagel and Randee M. Matloff of Nagel Rice, LLP. The T-Mobile prices class action lawsuit is Oddo, et al. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07719, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] THREE LOWER: Loses Bid to Substitute Party in Doe Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THREE LOWER COUNTIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, Defendant, Civil No. RDB-23-2811, Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motion filed by Three Lower Counties Community Services, Inc., d/b/a Chesapeake Health Care to substitute the United States as the proper defendant on its behalf pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 233. Judge Bennett granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On August 22, 2023, Doe initiated this putative class-action suit, filing a six-count Complaint against CHC in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Maryland. The Complaint stemmed from CHC's alleged "improper practice of disclosing the confidential [information] of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc., . . . Google, LLC, . . . [and others] via website tracking technologies." Specifically, Doe alleges Negligence (Count I); Negligence Per Se (Count II); Invasion of Privacy (Count III); Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count IV); Violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. Sec. 10-401, et seq. (Count V); and Violation of the Maryland Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, MD. CODE ANN., HEALTH-GEN. § 4-301, et seq. (Count VI). On October 18, 2023, CHC removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1442(a)(1), contending that it was acting under federal officer authority in furtherance of a federal objective. On April 15, 2024, the United States filed notice with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, having determined pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 233(a) and in light of the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ford v. Sandhills Med. Found., Inc., 97 F.4th 252 (4th Cir. 2024), the present action is not one "for damage for personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions." As such, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland determined that it would neither intervene nor substitute itself as a party on Defendant's behalf. In an off-record telephone conference on July 18, 2024, both counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that no alternative basis exists for granting Defendant's Motion to Substitute the United States on Defendant's behalf. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated July 18, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n8U14O TRADITIONS BANCORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With ACNB -------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Traditions Bancorp, Inc. (OTC: TRBK), relating to its proposed merger with ACNB Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, Traditions Bancorp shareholders will receive 0.7300 shares of ACNB common stock per share they own. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/traditions-bancorp-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] VICOR CORP: Faces Class Suit Over 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 Vicor Corporation (NASDAQ: VICR) common stock between April 26, 2023 and February 22, 2024. Vicor is a global power technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, and markets modular power components and power systems for converting electrical power in the United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. 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 Vicor Corporation (VICR) Misled Investors Regarding its AI Platform According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants misled investors regarding the Company's forthcoming AI platform and led investors to believe that Vicor had secured a significant deal with Nvidia for its H100 product, which caused shareholders to purchase Vicor stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaint alleges that on October 24, 2023, Vicor released its third quarter 2023 earnings and guidance for the remainder of the year. The Company assured it was in a good position with the progress made with its intellectual property and potential for diversification and expansion into the AI power systems market, but was reluctant to discuss its AI platforms, which analysts took as a sign of "shrink[ing]" opportunity in the space. In response, Vicor's stock price fell by $14.14 per share. Then, on February 22, 2024, Vicor announced its end of year earnings, which missed analyst expectations and signaled a sharp reversal in new contracts and sales. As a result, the price of Vicor stock declined from $46.84 per share on February 22, 2024, to $35.67 per share on February 23, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Vicor Corporation. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by September 23, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. 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 Vicor Corporation 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] YUDIN'S INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Harrell Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALFONSO HARRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Yudin's, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07982 (D.N.J., July 24, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to make its website, https://yudinsappliances.com, accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiff's visit to the Website, on March 6, 2024, he attempted to purchase a dryer or similar alternative from the Defendant. However, multiple accessibility issues on the website prevented him from efficiently navigating, selecting a product, and finalizing the purchase, the suit says. Due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as the Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services the Defendant offers to the public on its Website. The access barriers the Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past, and now deter The Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website, the suit adds. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant offers air conditioners, ranges, cooktops, ovens, hoods, microwaves, grills, dishwashers, washers, dryers, and refrigerators.[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 [*] Class Action Seeks GBP480MM From Freeholders for Hidden Payouts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leah Miller, writing for Mortgage Finance Gazette, reports that Solicitor Liam Spender, of law firm Velitor, is bringing the claim on a no-win-no-fee basis with backing from litigation funders. Spender, who is also a trustee of the campaign group and free advice service Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, argues that leaseholders could be owed up to GBP480m if the claim is successful. He estimates that this would amount to a payout of between GBP1,500 and GBP3,500 for every leaseholder who takes part. Spender claims that charging secret commissions on insurance premiums is unlawful, as leaseholders were never told and therefore have not given "informed consent" to these additional charges. As a result he believes these commissions remain the property of the leaseholders and should be returned to them. A review by the Financial Conduct Authority found that between 2019 and 2022 GBP1.6bn was paid out by leasehold homeowners in insurance premiums. The FCA estimated that on average leaseholders were paying an extra 30% of the premium in hidden commissions and in the worst cases as much as 60%. Spender has already successfully challenged a GBP100,000 insurance commission from the freeholder of his own property on behalf of himself and other leaseholders. He says: "I was able to expose and recoup the secret commissions through which freeholders took money from unknowing leaseholders. "Through this group action, Velitor is now looking to help others recover secret commissions they may have paid. "The plight of leaseholders and their unconscionable and unlawful treatment by some freeholders is nothing short of a national scandal. This legal action will be a significant step in addressing it." Giles Grover, a leaseholder, investigated the insurance commission charged to residents in his own block in Manchester. It was found to have the same type of cladding as Grenfell Tower, which meant the building’s insurance premiums rose 500%. Grover says: "It is disgraceful that, while residents were dealing with unsafe cladding in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy, insurance brokers and freeholders were splitting hidden commissions on our building insurance. "In just three years our insurance costs rose more than five times to over GBP440,000 a year. "Charging high rates of commission on such huge sums for doing next to no work will have made them a packet." As part of the no-win-no-fee deal, leaseholders taking part in the group action will have to agree to passing 40% of any damages won back to the law firm and its funders. If the claim succeeds, they must also pay the funder GBP100 for expenses, rising by GBP10 for each year that the action is ongoing. But there is no fee for joining the action and anyone who has owned a leasehold property since 1997 can take part. The claim will seek to reclaim the hidden commissions, any resultant increase in Insurance Premium Tax and interest going back at least six years. Velitor hopes this six-year period could be extended, if the High Court agrees. Leaseholders can find out more about the claim and sign up at leaseholdaction.com. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will introduce a ban on secret commissions, but this is not yet in force. [GN] [*] CrowdStrike IT Outage Prompts Businesses to File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Ross, writing for The Conversation, reports that until last Friday, July 19, many businesses hadn't really dealt with anything quite like the speed and severity of the CrowdStrike IT outage. Being forced to stop operations is costly. Some estimates put the damage bill from the outage at more than A$1 billion in Australia alone. As they continue to tally the losses, it's only natural that affected businesses will be asking who is legally responsible, and whether there'll be any compensation. These are great questions, but from a legal point of view the answers will be complex. Both CrowdStrike and various government cybersecurity authorities were quick to declare that the event was not the result of any criminal behaviour such as a cyberattack or other hacking. This means the laws relating to these matters fall within the jurisdiction of civil law -- in particular, the law of contracts and the law of torts. Exclusion clauses CrowdStrike's security software is used by a wide range of companies and other large organisations. Microsoft, whose tech ecosystem was impacted, estimated the CrowdStrike update affected 8.5 million Windows devices globally. But as with many other technology products, there is a clear contractual relationship between the consumer (the end user of the product) and the manufacturer (CrowdStrike). This contract -- the sometimes overlooked "terms and conditions" -- has to be "signed" electronically by organisations using the software. Signing binds them to these terms -- regardless of whether they've actually read them or not. Deep in the fine print of many software product terms and conditions are a series of exclusion clauses. Tech companies often rely on these to protect themselves from litigation for any damage that arises if their software malfunctions. In the case of CrowdStrike's Falcon security software, the relevant terms limit liability to "fees paid". Put more plainly, customers are entitled to no more than a simple refund. Contract law vs tort law As you can see, businesses' options for seeking redress under contract law may be severely limited. This has led some law firms to raise the possibility of pursuing class action under other claims, such as negligence. In a note to clients about the outage, New Zealand-based law firm Russell McVeagh said: Further, if any lack of readiness on the part of affected organisations exacerbated the scale or duration of the impact that the outage had on them, shareholder claims against those organisations, or their directors, are also a possibility. To understand how such a class action might be framed, you need to understand some important legal basics surrounding what's called "tort law" in common law. Australia and New Zealand follow the legal system known as common law, which was developed in Britain in the 11th century. At a high level, it simply means that courts follow precedents set by the highest court in the jurisdiction. And the word "tort" simply means a civil wrong. Many legal actions -- such as allegations of defamation, trespass, nuisance or negligence -- fall under the umbrella of torts. 'Snail in the bottle' In 1932, the UK House of Lords heard a case that would forever change the landscape of the common law world -- "Donoghue v Stevenson". This case is known by its nickname: "the snail in the bottle" case. The simple facts of it involved two friends having an ice cream float made with ginger beer in a Scottish cafe. After one of them had already consumed some of the dessert, they discovered a dead snail in the ginger beer bottle. The cafe owner could not have known that inside the commercially produced brown bottle of ginger beer was a dead snail. So a tort of negligence was brought by the consumer against the manufacturer of the bottle of ginger beer, Stevenson & Co. The plaintiff, the bringer of the civil case, had to prove three things for Stevenson, the defendant, to be found liable. First, that a duty of care was owed between the manufacturer and the final consumer. Second, that there was a breach of the duty of care. And finally, that it was reasonably foreseeable that harm would occur from that negligence, resulting in actual damage. The House of Lords decided in favour of Mrs Donoghue, which extended the notion of duty of care outside of contracts. Over the next 50 years these tests were refined, and "remoteness of damage" was added to the requirements for proving a case. This meant that in some instances, entities couldn't be found liable if they were found to be too remote from any harm that occurred. So could there be a class action? In Australia, most consumers are protected by legislation known as the Australian Consumer Law. This legislation provides different remedies and requirements of proof than the common law tortious requirements. But the common law principles of the tort of negligence still apply in tandem. However, any businesses and organisations looking to pursue class action against CrowdStrike on the tort grounds of negligence would face an extremely complex situation. The outage affected customers in a wide variety of countries, and CrowdStrike itself is headquartered in the United States. This means such class actions would likely have to be filed in a variety of US states and other countries. Class action lawyers would charge a percentage of the final settlement, which could be between 30% and 80% of any payout. But they would also take on the risk and pay all the costs, such as for expert witnesses and lawyer preparation. The scope and scale of the outage mean that if any class actions are eventually launched, it could become one of the largest litigation matters in the world and drag on for many years. Whatever happens, major insurance companies will continue watching the situation closely, with many businesses now looking closely at what they are covered for under any cyber insurance policies they'd taken out. [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 ***