/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240812.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 161 Headlines 24 CAPITAL: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Peters Broadcast 3M COMPANY: Bearb Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Bratt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: PFOA Contamination Suit Trial Set for Sept. 2024 50-01 2ND STREET: Faces Cheng Suit Over Unlawful Rent Overcharges ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mungaray Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Carr Suit in N.D. Illinois ALASKA: Disabled People Sue Over Mishandled Guardianship Duties AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept. 16 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Mehlman Sues Over Use of Clients' Cash Funds ASR GROUP: Artificially Inflates Sugar Prices, Johnson Claims BAND NAME 99: Cortez Seeks Proper Overtime Compensation BANNER LIFE: Thompson Suit over Medical History Disclosure Tossed BASEBALL LIFESTYLE: Faces Liz Suit Over Website's Access Barriers BOLL & BRANCH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Picon Alleges CAMELOT SI: Lester Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages CASH APP: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $15MM CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Geysimonyan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. COLBERT ANIMAL: Wade Alleges Wrongful Arrest for Animal Cruelty COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Court Approves Financial Aid Class Settlement COOPERFRIEDMAN ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Clark's Suit over Pay CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CRYSTAL BAY: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval D.R. HORTON: Fernandes et al. Suit Removed to D. South Carolina DEDMAN'S SANITATION: Marshall Seeks Trash Collectors' Unpaid OT DEL MONTE: Cox and Johnson Sue Over Deceptive Product Labeling DOXIM INC: Narolis Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach DRAFTKINGS INC: McAfee Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. ELITE WALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calderon Alleges EXPLORE INFORMATION: Faces Thao Suit Over False Consumer Info FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces RICO Suit Over Content Fraud FLORIDA: People Requests Hearing After Losing Medicaid Benefits FORMULA ONE: Discloses Subscribers' Info to 3rd Parties, Palma Says FRESNO SPORTS: Minor League Baseball Dismissed as Defendant GOLD MEDAL: Mazzochi Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Says HEMPSTEAD, NY: Court Overrules Objections to Discovery Order JOY SYSTEMS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JV ASSET: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Says LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Carew Sues Over Droop in Share Price LIVEXCHANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jackson Says LORENZ HIGH: Liz Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store LURIE CHILDREN’S: Faces Angulo Suit Over Alleged Data Breach MACROGENICS INC: Crain Sues Over Drop in Share Price MARINEMAX INC: Liable to Clients' Compromised Info, Lomedico Says MDL 2873: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Over Social Media Addiction MNGI DIGESTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Austin Alleges MNGI DIGESTIVE: Peterson Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info MONSECRETS INTERNATIONAL: Blind Can't Access Website, Picon Says MOOG INC: Munguia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. MOSAIC BAYBROOK: Files Appeal in Simien Suit MSCHF PRODUCT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Castillo Suit Claims MULTIPLAN INC: Mehrnaz Sues Over Repressed Reimbursement Rates NATALS INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Out Jury Verdict in Ticket Suit NEW MODEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bolden Alleges NEW SOUTH WALES: Strip-Searches Class Action Trial Set May 2025 NEW YORK: Loses Bid to Extend Discovery in Cardew, et al. Suit NORTH EAST TRADERS: Website is Blind-Inaccessible, Valencia Says NURTURE LIFE: Lamacchia Sues Over FCCPA Violations OLIVER CABELL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Agnone Claims ORION CONSTRUCTION: Barrett ERISA Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. P777K FREIGHT: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Perry Claims PANERA LLC: Faces Buchanan Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PARAGON 28: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims PEEK TRAVEL: Charles Sues Over Unlawful Ticket Fee Disclosure PERION NETWORK: Court Appoints Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel PLACID OIL: Day Town's Motion to Stay Crooks et al. Case Granted PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tampons Contains Toxic Lead, Barton Alleges RBC GLOBAL: Ontario Court Certifies Trailer Fee Class Action REMINGTON FIREARMS: Asks Judge to Dismiss Rifle Defect Class Suit SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: City of Inkster Sues Over Drop in Share Price SIGNALHIRE LLC: Must Face Gaul's Suit over Use of Image, Data SND National: Iverson et al. Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. SNOWFLAKE INC: Court Okays Stipulation in Tuerpe, et al. Lawsuit SNOWFLAKE INC: Kirby Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info TKO GROUP: Judge Rejects Proposed Settlement With UFC Fighters TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces Chaves Suit Over Cereal Bars' False Ads VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Murphy Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers WAYFAIR LLC: Counts, et al. Case Gets Conditional Certification WHITE HOUSE: Dalton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind ZOGOX INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Parra Alleges ********* 24 CAPITAL: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Peters Broadcast ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETERS BROADCAST ENGINEERING, also known as Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc., v. 24 CAPITAL, LLC and JASON SANKOV, Case No. 1:22-cv-00236-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a stay of briefing on the Motion for Class Certification by Proposed Class Representative Peters Broadcast Engineering until the Court rules on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative grant the Defendants a 30-day extension to respond to PBE's Motion for Class Certification, giving the Defendants until Sept. 16, 2024. Subject to the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the Motion for Class Certification by Proposed Class Representative Peters Broadcast Engineering is likely to become moot. To save the Court's and parties resources and to promote efficiency and economy, the Defendants contend it is in the best interest to stay briefing and consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until it is determined if this Court has jurisdiction or if this case will otherwise be dismissed on alternative arguments. Time and resources would be misspent for the parties to brief, and the Court to consider the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification if it ends up being determined that the Court lacks jurisdiction or the claims should otherwise be dismissed. The Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by staying briefing and a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. On July 3, 2024, PBE filed its Motion for Class Certification. On July 15, 2024, the Defendants filed their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Motion for Class Certification. On July 16, 2024, the Court granted Defendants Motion for Extension of Time, allowing Defendants until August 16, 2024 to respond to the Motion for Class Certification. Without agreeing to the contents of this Motion and reserving all rights thereto, PBE’s counsel was contacted via email by undersigned counsel, and he does not object to the idea of a stay of briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification pending a ruling on a Motion to Dismiss. 24 Capital is an established merchant cash advance direct funder providing quick business capital. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x2hIou at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Percy Squire, Esq. PERCY SQUIRE CO LLC 341 S. Third St., Suite 10 Columbus, OH 43215 E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Kristopher N. Kazmierczak, Esq. Katherine M. Slisz, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 4500 Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961 Telephone: (317) 237-3800 Facsimile: (317) 237-3900 E-mail: kkazmierczak@fbtlaw.com kslisz@fbtlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Bearb Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bearb, individually and as personal representative for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04159-RMG (D.S.C., July 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his military career who was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Selby, II, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905 Birmingham, AL 35244 Phone: 205.988.9253 Fax: 205.788.4896 Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com 3M COMPANY: Bratt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie Bratt, individually and as personal representative for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04172-RMG (D.S.C., July 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: PFOA Contamination Suit Trial Set for Sept. 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3M Co. 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 state court of New Jersey has set trial date for PFOA contamination-related class suit in September 2024. 3M and Middlesex Water Company are defending a putative class action filed in New Jersey federal court in November 2021 by individuals who received drinking water from Middlesex Water Company that was allegedly contaminated with PFOA. In May 2022, Middlesex Water Company filed a third-party complaint against the Company in New Jersey state court in a putative class action brought by customers of the water company, seeking contribution and indemnity from the Company. In November 2023, Middlesex Water Company dismissed its third-party complaint against the Company in connection with the settlement of Middlesex Water Company's separate action against 3M. A trial date in the state court action has been set for September 2024. In March 2023, a personal injury lawsuit was filed against 3M and Middlesex Water Company by another Middlesex Water Company customer. In May 2023, 3M filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims in that lawsuit and plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to withdraw certain claims against 3M. The case is now proceeding in discovery. Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods. [BN] 50-01 2ND STREET: Faces Cheng Suit Over Unlawful Rent Overcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEO CHENG, CARLY BRASFIELD, OLSJON GOXHAJ, LEONARDO DE ANDRADE and AMAR DHEBAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 50-01 2nd STREET ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 715258/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., July 25, 2024) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act by improperly raising the amount payable by Plaintiff as rent, in excess of the legally permitted increase, while Defendant wrongfully claiming that it could "pull" his rent concession at renewal. Defendant is the owner-in-fee of the apartment buildings located at 2-14 50th Avenue, commonly referred to as "Gantry Park Landing" in Long Island City. Gantry Park Landing participates in the 421-a Program, which requires landlords to register their units with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and that those apartments be treated as rent-stabilized. According to the complaint, the Defendant has evaded the 421-a Program's requirements, and governing rent-stabilization laws, in two ways: -- First, the initial legal regulated rent to be registered for an apartment in a 421-a building must be the "monthly rent charged and paid by the tenant," and all subsequent rent increases are to be derived from that number. Here, Defendant registered initial rents at amounts far higher than what the initial tenant was paying and wrongfully registered a lower rent -- termed a preferential rent -- which represented the true amount "charged and paid" by the Building's initial tenant. By registering with a preferential rent, the Defendant was able to increase the first rent, at renewal, from $2,884.00 to $3075.00, approximately a 7% increase. -- Second, the Defendant improperly manipulated lease terms, and payment amounts, so that it could evade the protections afforded by HSTPA. The Defendant overcharged Plaintiffs and the members of the Class an amount equal to the difference between their monthly rents and the appropriate legal regulated rent-stabilized rents. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover monetary damages from Defendant based on the unlawful overcharges, as well as an award of interest thereon, says the suit. Plaintiff Carly Brasfield resides in Apartment 603E at Gantry Park Landing, in the County of Queens, in the City and State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 E-mail: lferrara@nfllp.com rsachar@nfllp.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mungaray Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Mungaray, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Nationwide Testing Association, Inc., Low Country Drug Screening LLC and Quantix SCS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2024-CP-10-02726, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, State of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 11, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03909-DCN-KFM to the proceeding. The case asserts claims arising under the laws of the United States for discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Quantix SCS, LLC is a supply chain services company based in Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melissa F. Spence, Esq. Anna W. Mobley, Esq. BUTLER SNOW, LLP 25 Calhoun Street, Suite 250 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 277-3700 Facsimile: (843) 277-3701 E-mail: melissa.spence@butlersnow.com anna.mobley@butlersnow.com ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Carr Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Advance Auto Parts, Inc. in Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned as GARY CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05475 (N.D. Ill., June 28, 2024). Advance Auto Parts, Inc. engages in the supply and distribution of aftermarket automotive products for both professional installers and do-it-yourself. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Paul Thompson Chicago Consumer Law Center, P.C. 650 Warrenville Road Suite 100 Lisle, IL 60532 Telephone: (312) 858-3239 Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com ALASKA: Disabled People Sue Over Mishandled Guardianship Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- Iris Samuels of Anchorage Daily News reports that several disabled Alaskans have filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Alaska over its mishandling of the guardianship services it was required under law to provide. The lawsuit stems from the Alaska Office of Public Advocacy's decision two years ago to request that dozens of public guardianship clients -- all disabled and vulnerable adult residents of Alaska -- be transferred from the care of the state to the care of a private guardian who proved incapable of ensuring their basic needs were met. Under a 2022 court order, private guardian Thomas McDuffie took over dozens of cases from the Office of Public Advocacy even before McDuffie formally received his guardianship license. What followed were reports of neglect and abuse that led some wards to lose property, incur massive debt and suffer from declining health. According to the lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of 10 named plaintiffs by Anchorage civil rights attorney Caitlin Shortell, Alaska's Adult Protective Services agency received multiple complaints about McDuffie's misconduct and negligence, but the agency failed to respond to the complaints and investigate the wrongdoing as required by law. McDuffie is facing numerous lawsuits over his alleged misconduct in neglecting and mishandling his duties to care for around 122 guardianship and conservatorship wards between 2021 and 2023. No criminal charges have been filed against him. This is the first lawsuit that names the state of Alaska and heads of public agencies as partially responsible for the damage suffered by McDuffie's former wards. Alongside McDuffie and his private guardianship agency, Cache Integrity Services, the lawsuit filed in July names as plaintiffs Beth Goldstein, the deputy director of the Office of Public Advocacy, and Anthony Newman, the director of Adult Protective Services within the Alaska Department of Health. The plaintiffs, who belong to a group of around 122 guardianship and conservatorship wards that were transferred from the care of the Office of Public Advocacy to McDuffie's agency, are seeking compensation from the defendants on account of their misconduct. According to the lawsuit, the actions of Newman and Goldstein resulted in "egregious neglect, abuse, and loss of real and personal property, money and benefits." The lawsuit states that Newman and Goldstein "knew or should have known that they were obligated to protect plaintiffs but were deliberately indifferent to their duties." The state of Alaska has not yet formally responded to the lawsuit, and has several weeks to do so. "As a general matter, we can all agree that the actions of Cache Integrity are tragic, and OPA and the Department of Law have been working diligently on solutions," Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Sam Curtis said by email. "Our focus remains on how to improve the situation and ensure Cache Integrity can do no more harm. It is unfortunate that the State has been included in this lawsuit when the responsibility lies with those that caused the injury." Individuals placed under a court-appointed guardianship are adults who rely on their guardian to ensure they are housed and their most basic needs are met. The guardian is also responsible for ensuring wards receive public benefits, on which wards typically depend. According to the lawsuit, Goldstein "recommended, transferred and referred" Alaskans who had been wards of the state to McDuffie's agency but did not verify that McDuffie met the requirements of a private guardian. The Adult Protective Services agency, overseen by director Newman, then "received numerous complaints" regarding neglect of the plaintiffs by McDuffie and his agency "but inexcusably failed to direct staff to investigate those reports of harm, prolonging and compounding the harms" to the plaintiffs in the case, according to the lawsuit. After McDuffie and his agency proved incapable of caring for their guardianship and conservatorship clients, the individuals were transferred back to the responsibility of the Office of Public Advocacy in 2023, and Goldstein was appointed "special investigative conservator" by Anchorage Superior Court Judge Eric Aarseth. Since then, McDuffie's former wards "have been unable to recover lost property and funds" and have lost access to public benefits, leaving some of them unable to pay for room and board, and causing some to be evicted from their housing, according to the lawsuit. Goldstein and the Office of Public Advocacy "failed to remedy the harms caused by McDuffie and Cache Integrity Services," according to the lawsuit. The state did not hire a forensic accountant as ordered by the Superior Court, and the plaintiffs' funds were not released to their new guardians and conservators. "We had hoped that Goldstein and the State of Alaska would act, but their ongoing negligence and failure to protect Plaintiffs has necessitated the filing of this class action complaint," Shortell said in a written statement. "We are seeking damages and injunctive relief for Plaintiffs and all 122 former wards of Thomas McDuffie and Cache Integrity Services." Between August 2022 and November 2023, Adult Protective Services, an agency within the Alaska Department of Health charged with investigating potential mistreatment of adults, received several complaints alleging that McDuffie and his agency were neglecting the wards assigned to the agency. Complaints submitted to Adult Protective Services are not made public until investigations are complete. The complaints included allegations from assisted living homes that McDuffie was not submitting payment for wards' housing, according to the lawsuit. They also included reports from care coordinators that McDuffie did not respond to requests for signatures on needed documents to authorize Medicaid services. Family members of wards reported that McDuffie and his agency had breached their conservatorship or guardianship duties. In one case, McDuffie left one of his wards in the hospital for more than a year when hospitalization was not necessary, incurring a hospital bill of more than $615,000, according to the court filing. In another case, McDuffie failed to file and pay taxes on behalf of a ward, until the IRS seized the ward's property and froze the bank accounts of the ward's daughter. Adult Protective Services is required by statute to "promptly initiate an investigation to determine whether the vulnerable adult who is the subject of the report suffers from abandonment, exploitation, abuse, neglect, or self neglect." According to the lawsuit, Adult Protective Services did not conduct the required investigation and take action to protect the wards from neglect and abuse. The plaintiffs are requesting financial compensation. They are also asking the court to prohibit Goldstein from serving as special investigative conservator, and to ensure that a forensic accountant is hired to unwind the finances of the plaintiffs and return their property to them. Aarseth, the judge assigned to oversee McDuffie's former wards, previously declined requests to appoint an independent investigator. If the court certifies the class described in the lawsuit, including all of wards that had been transferred from the state to McDuffie's agency, then every one of those wards could be entitled to compensation, rather than just the 10 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. William Earnhart, an attorney representing Cache Integrity Services, has filed a motion to consolidate the six separate lawsuits targeting McDuffie and his agency that have been filed in recent months. According to the motion, Cache Integrity Services "is for all practical purposes bankrupt." The agency has a $1 million general liability policy that could cover some of the damages requested by the plaintiffs, Earnhart wrote in the motion. [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in American Airlines Group Inc. ("American Airlines" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AAL) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of American Airlines investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between January 25, 2024 and May 28, 2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/american-airlines-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=92947&wire=3 AAL investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: During the class period, defendants made overwhelmingly positive statements to investors regarding American's new sales and distribution strategy to reduce internal expenses while simultaneously driving a significant demand increase for the Company's airline services. The complaint alleges that these statements misrepresented the true state of American, and that the Company was simultaneously concealing material adverse facts including, notably, that the Company's sales and distribution strategy was not driving the revenue projected. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in American Airlines during the relevant time frame, you have until September 16, 2024 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Mehlman Sues Over Use of Clients' Cash Funds ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSANNE MEHLMAN and JOY HULTMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., and AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03018 (D. Minn., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendants' implementation of a scheme whereby they use their clients' cash balances to generate massive profits for themselves while shortchanging their clients. As a result of Ameriprise's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class received lower interest payments on their cash and other deposits than they would have in a reasonable and fair market. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a provider of financial consulting, wealth management, and advisory services, with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, Inc. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, Inc. American Enterprise Investment Services, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com - and - Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6404 Facsimile: (212) 257-8482 Email: tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com - and - Bruce D. Oakes, Esq. Richard B. Fosher, Esq. OAKES & FOSHER, LLC 1401 Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 250 Saint Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 804-1412 Facsimile: (314) 428-7604 Email: boakes@oakesfosher.com rfosher@oakesfosher.com ASR GROUP: Artificially Inflates Sugar Prices, Johnson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-02973-JWB-DTS (D. Minn., July 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, as well as various state antitrust and trade regulation laws, and common law, for redress of the injury and damages caused by Defendants' conspiracy to fix prices of granulated sugar in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2019, through the date by which the anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present. According to the complaint, beginning at least as early as January 1, 2019, the Defendants conspired to fix and artificially inflate the prices of granulated sugar sold in the United States. To implement their price-fixing conspiracy, the Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information about granulated sugar prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand. Among the victims of the conspiracy are U.S. consumers of granulated sugar, such as Plaintiff. But for their conspiracy and unlawful acts in furtherance, the Plaintiff and members of the Class would have paid less for granulated sugar than they did during the Class Period. The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the injury and damages he and members of the Class have suffered and continue to suffer by reason of Defendants' continuing violations of law, says the suit. ASR Group is a privately held Florida corporation and global producer and seller of granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq Peter St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. Sitso Bediako, Esq. Peter A. Barile, III, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com sbediako@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com BAND NAME 99: Cortez Seeks Proper Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CORTEZ, Plaintiff v. BAND NAME 99 CENTS & UP CORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05262 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Cortez was employed by Defendant as a clerk from approximately January 15, 2024, until June 28, 2024. During this period, the Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as determined by the work schedule set by Defendant. However, despite the mandatory pay obligations under FLSA and NYLL, the Defendant only compensated him at a rate of $8 per hour and failed to pay his lawful overtime pay for the said period, says the Plaintiff. Band Name 99 Cents & Up is a corporate entity principally engaged in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com BANNER LIFE: Thompson Suit over Medical History Disclosure Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Banner Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the case captioned as ROBERT THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. Case No. 24-CV-01096-SPM (S.D. Ill.), for failure to state a claim under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. Because further amendment of his Complaint would be futile, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff Robert Thompson originally sued Banner Life in the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Effingham County, Illinois on October 30, 2023. Thompson brought this action as a putative Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals who applied for life insurance coverage within the applicable limitations period. Thompson alleges that, when applying for life insurance with Banner, he was required to "answer questions concerning his family medical history, i.e. the manifestation of diseases or disorders in his family members. Such questions included whether Plaintiff's family members had a history of high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other medical conditions." Thompson argues that this information is considered "genetic information" under the auspices of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, 10 ILL. COMP. STAT. 513/1 et seq. such that he is entitled to recovery of statutory damages. Banner removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446 on April 12, 2024. Banner first filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on May 31, 2024. Plaintiff Thompson filed an Amended Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) on June 13, 2024. Banner filed the instant Motion on June 27, 2024. In analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court must determine whether or not the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Thompson brings this action purportedly pursuant to Sec. 20(b) of GIPA, which states that "[a]n insurer shall not use or disclose protected health information that is genetic information for underwriting purposes." Thompson argues that "Plaintiff and the Class underwent medical physical exams performed by healthcare providers, during which questions regarding their family medical history, i.e. the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members were asked" and that "the third-party healthcare providers collected Plaintiff's and the other Class members' protected health information that is genetic information." Thompson alleges that "Defendant then obtained and used this information for underwriting purposes by, inter alia, using it to assess Plaintiff's and the Class members' eligibility for life insurance coverage and compute their premiums" and, therefore, that "Defendant used Plaintiff's and the Class members' genetic information in violation of the GIPA." Thompson argues that because "[t]he information obtained from Plaintiff and the Class by Defendant is the type of information protected by GIPA[,] . . . Plaintiff and the other Class members have been aggrieved by Defendant's above violations of their statutorily protected rights to privacy in their genetic information as set forth in GIPA.". He argues that these violations entitle him and the putative class members to "statutory damages of $15,000 for each reckless or intentional violation of GIPA and, alternatively, damages of $2,500 for each negligent violation of GIPA." In its Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, Banner argues that Thompson has misread and misapplied GIPA because life insurance was not included within the definition of "insurers." Banner argues that the language "other activities related to the creation, renewal, or replacement of a contract of health insurance or health benefits" indicates that the Illinois Legislature intended to limit GIPA to health insurers only. Banner also argues that "the definition of 'protected health information' limits Section 20(b)'s regulatory scope to insurers who use information for underwriting purposes that was 'created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse.'" Banner argues that "[i]n 1997, when GIPA was proposed, GIPA's sponsors in the Illinois Senate and Illinois House of Representatives stated unequivocally that life insurance was excluded from GIPA's regulatory scope." Finally, Banner argues that "[a]ccording to Plaintiff's construction of Section 20(b), in 2015, the Illinois General Assembly prohibited life insurers from conducting medical examinations or considering family medical history when issuing life insurance policies." In response, Thompson argues that "Defendant's argument is contrary to the plain language of the statute and the fact that while the Illinois Legislature could have explicitly limited Section 20(b) to just health insurance policies as it did in other sections, it did not do so." Thompson argues that "based on the plain text of 410 ILCS 513/20(b), the Court's inquiry should not be whether GIPA applies to life insurance or not -- there are no limitations in the language to suggest to the contrary -- but whether the 'protected information that is genetic information', as defined by HIPAA, was unlawfully used by an 'insurer' as stated in 410 ILCS 513/20(b)." To this point, Thompson argues first that "there is no limiting language in Section 20(b) that it only applies to health insurance." The Court is not convinced by Thompson's arguments for a broader meaning of "insurer," pointing out that the terms in Sec. 10 are clearly defined as excluding life insurance and multiple provisions in Sec. 20 expressly exclude life insurance. Section 20 applies the specific bounds of "accident and health insurance" and does not include any other forms of insurance, the Court states. Moreover, the legislative history and lack of lawsuits in the nine years since Sec. 20(b) was implemented indicates that Thompson's application of GIPA was not intended, the Court. According to Judge McGlynn, in absence of any caselaw from the Seventh Circuit in support of Thompson's argument, the Court declines to vastly expand GIPA to include tort lawsuits against life insurance companies using family medical history questionnaires like that provided by Thompson to Banner as part of his life insurance application. If the Illinois Legislature intended for life insurance companies to be included within the ambit of GIPA, they would have expressly included them within Sec. 10 and 20; the failure to do so indicates that the omission was intentional, the Court says. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nehRPc BASEBALL LIFESTYLE: Faces Liz Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASEBALL LIFESTYLE 101, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05710 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.bl101.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Baseball Lifestyle 101, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BOLL & BRANCH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Picon Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOLL & BRANCH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05702 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.bollandbranch.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, ambiguous link texts, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Boll & Branch, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com CAMELOT SI: Lester Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY LESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMELOT SI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11946-JJCG-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed multiple text messages on the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to advertise, promote and/or market its goods or services. The Plaintiff attempted to opt-out of the Defendant's text message solicitations by responding, but the Defendant continued to text messages. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life. Camelot SI, LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal office located in Oakland County, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com CASH APP: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $15MM ---------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that consumers whose information was compromised in 2022 and 2023 Cash App data breaches could benefit from a $15 million settlement. The settlement benefits current and former Cash App customers whose account and personal information was obtained without consent or who experienced fraudulent withdrawals or transfers between Aug. 23, 2018, and Aug. 20, 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, Cash App failed to protect consumers from two data breaches in 2022 and 2023. The 2022 breach reportedly involved an employee's unauthorized access to Cash App Investing accounts, whereas the 2023 breach involved a third party's unauthorized access using recycled phone numbers. Cash App is a financial services platform that allows users to transfer money, pay vendors and invest. Cash App hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $15 million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to $2,500 for documented losses related to the data breaches, including credit costs, bank fees, travel expenses and up to three hours of lost time compensated at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members who experienced fraudulent transactions as a result of the data breaches can receive additional compensation for these losses if they provide sufficient documentation. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 1, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2024. To receive Cash App settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 18, 2024. Who's Eligible Current and former Cash App customers whose account and personal information was obtained without consent or who experienced fraudulent withdrawals or transfers between Aug. 23, 2018, and Aug. 20, 2024 Potential Award $2,500 Proof of Purchase Receipts, bills, invoices, account statements, credit reports, financial documents, police reports and other documentation of data breach-related losses. Claim Form Deadline 11/18/2024 Case Name Salinas, et al. v. Block Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-04823-AMO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 12/16/2024 Settlement Website CashAppSecuritySettlement.com Claims Administrator Cash App Security Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 (866) 615-9740 Class Counsel David A Goodwin GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Nicholas A Migliaccio Jason S Rathod MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP Gary S Graifman Melissa R Emert KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN PCScott D Hirsch SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP William B Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Defense Counsel Aravind Swaminathan Michelle Visser ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP [GN] CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Geysimonyan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GEORGE GEVORK GEYSIMONYAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP; and DOES 1 thru 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV11352, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05840 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Doing business as Verizon Wireless, Cellco Partnership provides wireless voice and data services throughout the United States. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Zadravecz, Esq. Aileen H. Kim, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612.4408 Telephone: +1 (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: +1 (949) 553-7539 E-mail: szadravecz@jonesday.com aileenkim@jonesday.com COLBERT ANIMAL: Wade Alleges Wrongful Arrest for Animal Cruelty --------------------------------------------------------------- Margo Gray, writing for WAFF, reports a new federal lawsuit is leveling some serious accusations against the Colbert County Animal Shelter, its director, the county and area police officers. The lawsuit alleges the animal control director has gone rouge, acting more as a deputy with arresting powers than an animal advocate. There's no doubt Corey Speegle, the Director of Colbert Animal Services has a passion for protecting animals from cruelty and abuse but the federal lawsuit claims that passion went too far when arresting a woman who claims she never owned animals to begin with. Candice Wade and others filed a class action lawsuit against Speegle, Colbert Animal Services, the City of Tuscumbia, Muscle Shoals, Sheffield and more claiming she was cited and arrested for animal cruelty and failure to immunize dogs at her Tuscumbia home. The case goes back to last August when Wade was issued a citation over what she claims was a stray dog with puppies that she says her entire neighborhood tried to care for but some died. The lawsuit says the dog, nor the puppies were at her home when she was approached by Speegle and two Tuscumbia police officers. She says when she was arrested and booked, it was Speegle who claimed to be the arresting officer who doesn't have arresting powers. The lawsuit goes on to say the entire ordeal caused extreme embarrassment and emotional distress when her mugshot was posted. Her case was eventually dismissed. Now Wade wants all agencies involved to pay up, claiming her 4th Amendment rights were violated and that she was assaulted. WAFF reached out to Corey Speegle and are waiting on a return call. Wade's Attorney declined to comment on pending litigation. [GN] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Court Approves Financial Aid Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jesse Levine of Columbia Spectator reports that the eastern division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order on July 20 approving Columbia's settlement of $24 million to resolve a class action financial aid lawsuit filed in January 2022. The order came more than five months after the settlement was preliminarily approved by the same court in February 2024. The lawsuit alleged that Columbia -- along with several other private institutions, including Brown University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University -- entered into "a continuing agreement, understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade artificially to fix, raise, and stabilize and reduce the amount of financial aid paid to Class Members," in violation of antitrust legislation. "While Columbia disputes the merit of this case, the University has determined to put this matter behind us. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. Columbia denies the allegations and stands by its position that plaintiffs' claims are without merit," a University spokesperson wrote in a statement to Spectator. The court approved nine other universities' settlement agreements, with payment amounts ranging from $13.5 million to $55 million, according to the order. The lawsuit states that the universities have all been members of the "568 Presidents Group," named after Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. The act offers qualifying universities temporary exemption from antitrust legislation as long as "all students are admitted on a need-blind basis." The 568 Presidents Group was formally dissolved on Nov. 4, 2022, following the expiration of the special protection afforded by Section 568 on Sept. 30, 2022. "The University's participation in the 568 Group was intended to benefit our students. Columbia's mission is to help all students admitted, regardless of individual financial circumstances, achieve their goal of pursuing a world class education at our university," the spokesperson wrote. The plaintiffs of the lawsuit -- all former or current students at universities included in the lawsuit when initially filed -- alleged that the universities "have participated and are participating in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to reduce or eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition, and that in fact has artificially inflated the net price of attendance for students receiving financial aid." Likening the universities named in the lawsuit to "gatekeepers to the American Dream," the suit notes the specific impact of the universities' actions on low- and middle-income families. The lawsuit claims that Columbia failed to qualify for the antitrust law exemptions outlined in Section 568 when it was still in place because Columbia "engages in need-aware admissions practices that relate to applicants to its School of General Studies." The admissions process for the School of General Studies is need-blind, according to the University's website. General Studies does not guarantee to meet 100 percent of demonstrated need for financial aid. Columbia "denies each and every one of Plaintiffs' allegations of unlawful or wrongful conduct by Columbia University, denies that any conduct of Columbia University challenged by Plaintiffs caused any damage whatsoever, and denies all liability of any kind," according to the settlement agreement. Now that Columbia's settlement of $24 million has been approved by the court, the settlement will provide payments to the members of the settlement class as long as they submit timely and valid claim forms. Columbia's settlement agreement specifies that the settlement class -- individuals who are set to receive monetary awards from the court on the basis of the settlement -- include all U.S. citizens or permanent residents who were enrolled in a full-time undergraduate program at Columbia from fall 2003 to Feb. 28, 2024. The settlement class includes students who received at least some amount of need-based financial aid from Columbia and whose tuition, room, board, and fees to attend Columbia "was not fully covered by the combination of any types of financial aid or merit aid (not including loans) in any undergraduate year," according to the agreement. The total settlement class across universities named in the suit is over 200,000 students. The average class member will receive about $2,000, assuming that roughly half of the settlement class will submit timely claims and that the money that the court will award in attorneys' fees and costs is as requested, according to the Financial Aid Antitrust Settlement's website. The amount of money that any individual in the settlement class may receive is not directly related to the amount of money that the university they attended has paid in the settlement. Per the settlement class' request, funds that remain after the initial distribution that cannot be efficiently distributed back to the settlement class will be given "to charitable causes that promote access to higher education for disadvantaged students and families." [GN] COOPERFRIEDMAN ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Clark's Suit over Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on several motions filed by the parties in the case captioned as JOHN R. CLARK, individually and on behalf of all putative class members, Plaintiff, -v- COOPERFRIEDMAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC. D/B/A COOPER POWER SYSTEMS and COOPER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-07806-JPC (S.D.N.Y.). From approximately December 18, 2018, to September 30, 2022, Clark worked as a generator maintenance technician for Cooper. Throughout his employment, Clark worked on "various private and public projects, including public buildings and facilities in New York County, Kings County, Bronx County, Nassau County, Suffolk County, and various locations in New Jersey." Clark typically worked eight-hour to ten-hour shifts, five days a week, for a total of approximately 40 to 50 hours each week. He was paid at a rate of roughly $36.50 per hour at the beginning of his employment, $37.50 per hour approximately a year into his employment, and $38.50 per hour in his final year of employment -- with his wages disbursed every other week. Clark received no health insurance or other "fringe benefits." On September 1, 2023, Clark filed this putative class action against Cooper, asserting (1) that he is a manual worker entitled to weekly (rather than biweekly) pay under Section 191 of the New York Labor Law ("Count One"), (2) that Cooper breached the Public Works Contracts with various "prime and/or sub-contracts with public entities," by failing to pay Clark, a purported third-party beneficiary of those contracts, local prevailing wages ("Count Two"), and (3) in the alternative to that breach-of-contract theory, that Cooper was unjustly enriched by failing to pay Clark such prevailing wages ("Count Three"). On January 12, 2024, Cooper filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. In addition to arguing that Clark failed to state claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, Cooper maintained that Clark's Section 191 claim must be dismissed for Clark's lack of standing and for the absence of a private right of action for such a claim. In challenging the Court's jurisdiction to hear Count One, Cooper contends that: -- Clark lacks standing to assert an untimely wage claim because Clark was ultimately paid his wages due (that is, at the conclusion of each biweekly pay cycle) and so cannot rely on economic loss as a basis for asserting a concrete injury in fact. -- Clark cannot "establish standing solely through liquidated damages" as provided for under Section 198 of the NYLL, which permits an employee "to recover the full amount of any underpayment" and "an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to one hundred percent of the total amount of wages found to be due." Under Section 198 the "full amount of any underpayment" due to Clark for a pay frequency violation would be $0, and, as a result, the liquidated damages -- that is, "one hundred percent of the total amount of wages found to be due" -- would also be $0. According to the Court, both arguments miss the mark, as Clark need not rely on a theory of either unpaid wages or liquidated damages for purposes of Article III standing. Rather, Clark's allegations of mere delayed payment are sufficient. Clark has sufficiently pleaded a concrete injury to confer Article III standing. The Court thus denies Cooper's motion to dismiss in as much it seeks dismissal of Count One for want of subject matter jurisdiction. In the interest of conserving the Court's and the parties' resources, the Court reserves ruling on Cooper's motion to dismiss in as much as it seeks dismissal of Clark's Section 191 claim under Rule 12(b)(6) pending the pending the potential resolution by the New York Court of Appeals of the issue squarely presented. To state a claim for breach of contract under New York law, "a [plaintiff] need only allege (1) the existence of an agreement, (2) adequate performance of the contract by the plaintiff, (3) breach of contract by the defendant, and (4) damages." Cooper argues that Clark has failed to adequately allege the existence of a contract (and so has failed to allege the remaining elements as well). The Court disagrees. Clark has alleged that Cooper entered into the Public Works Contracts and that each of these contracts required Cooper to pay its workers "at or above" local prevailing wages. Clark has further alleged that throughout his employment with Cooper, he worked in "public buildings and facilities in New York County, Kings County, Bronx County, Nassau County, Suffolk County, and various locations in New Jersey," and that he was paid below local prevailing wages. At this early stage, when the Court accepts these allegations as true and draws all inferences in Clark's favor, these allegations sufficiently state a claim for breach of contract -- especially given that the relevant details concerning those public works contracts may well be peculiarly within Cooper's knowledge. Accordingly, the Court denies Cooper's motion to dismiss Count Two. Cooper's arguments for dismissal of Clark's claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit in Count Three are similarly unavailing. In urging dismissal of Clark's quasi-contractual claim, Cooper argues that Clark "in no way claims that Cooper was enriched by [the] alleged underpayment of prevailing wages, and only generally claims that he was not paid prevailing wages while working on unidentified contracts during an unidentified amount of time." But if Cooper was required to pay its laborers on public works projects local prevailing wages and failed to play Clark those wages, the natural inference is that Cooper was enriched by that underpayment. Clark's allegations to that effect are sufficient to put Cooper on notice of the nature of Clark's claim, and at this juncture, Clark may proceed on his quasi-contractual claim in the alternative to his claim for breach of contract. Accordingly, the Court denies Cooper's motion to dismiss Count Three. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f4QtmC CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc., Inc. ("CrowdStrike" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRWD) securities between November 29, 2023 and July 29, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the Company's investors under the federal securities laws. CrowdStrike, headquartered in Austin, Texas, is a global cybersecurity company that provides software that helps prevent data breaches. CrowdStrike's customers are major corporations across several industries including airlines, banks, hospitals, and telecommunications providers as well as government entities. CrowdStrike's main product is the Falcon software platform, which purportedly uses artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to detect, prevent, and respond to security breach threats. The Falcon software is embedded in the computers of CrowdStrike's customers and requires constant updates. The Complaint in the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the efficacy of the Falcon platform while assuring investors that CrowdStrike's technology was "validated, tested, and certified." The Complaint alleges that these statements were false and misleading because Defendants had failed to disclose that: (1) CrowdStrike had instituted deficient controls in its procedure for updating Falcon and was not properly testing updates to Falcon before rolling them out to customers; (2) this inadequate software testing created a substantial risk that an update to Falcon could cause major outages for a significant number of the Company's customers; and (3) such outages could pose, and in fact ultimately created, substantial reputational harm and legal risk to CrowdStrike. The Complaint further alleges that as a result of these materially false and misleading statements and omissions, CrowdStrike stock traded at artificially high prices during the Class Period. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that beginning on July 19, 2024, investors learned about critical issues with CrowdStrike's technology when a single update pushed by CrowdStrike caused outages for millions of users of Microsoft Windows devices worldwide, including financial institutions, government entities, and corporations. Further, the Complaint alleges that CrowdStrike disclosed that the outages had left users vulnerable to potential hacking threats. Further, the Complaint alleges that on this news, shares of CrowdStrike fell $38.09 or 11% to close at $304.96 on July 19, 2024. The Complaint also alleges that then, on July 22, 2024, the fallout of the outages was further revealed as Congress called on Defendant Kurtz to testify regarding the crisis and the Company's stock rating was downgraded by analysts such as Guggenheim and BTIG. The Complaint further alleges that on this news, shares of CrowdStrike fell $41.05 or 13.5% to close at $263.91 on July 22, 2024. The Complaint also alleges that investors continued to learn about the legal risks of Defendant's conduct on July 29, 2024, as news outlets reported that Delta Air Lines had hired prominent attorney David Boies to seek damages from the Company following the outages. The Complaint lastly alleges that on this news, shares of CrowdStrike fell $25.16 or 10%to close at $233.65 on July 30, 2024. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of CrowdStrike should contact the Firm prior to the September 30, 2024 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] CRYSTAL BAY: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as FERNANDO MENDOZA, SOPHIE MENDOZA, and HUEY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CRYSTAL BAY CASINO, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00092-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Honorable Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. The settlement resolves claims brought by customers impacted by the data incident disclosed in February 2023 and resulting in the potential compromise of customers' personally identifying information. The settlement provides that: -- Claimants may be eligible to claim 3-years of credit monitoring. -- Claimants may also be eligible to receive an Alternative Cash Payment, currently estimated to be between $25 and $50, but increased or decreased depending upon the number of claims filed. -- In lieu of an Alternative Cash Payment, claimants may be eligible to claim reimbursement for documented monetary losses (maximum payment of up to $10,000) from the proposed settlement. Monetary losses may include up to 5 hours of time spent dealing with the effects of the Incident, reimbursed at a rate of $20 per hour. To receive a payment, claimants must complete and submit a Claim Form. On February 5, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement which, among other things: (a) conditionally certified this matter as a class action, including defining the class and class claims, (b) appointed Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and appointed Thiago M. Coelho of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and David Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman as Class Counsel; (c) preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement; (d) approved the form and manner of Notice to the Settlement Class; (d) set deadlines for opt-outs and objections; (e) approved and appointed the Claims Administrator; and (f) set the date for the Final Fairness Hearing. On March 6, 2024, pursuant to the Notice requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement and in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class was notified of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, of the right of Settlement Class Members to opt-out, and the right of Settlement Class Members to object to the Settlement Agreement and to be heard at a Final Fairness Hearing. On August 5, 2024, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to determine, inter alia: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate for the release of the claims contemplated by the Settlement Agreement; and (2) whether judgment should be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. Prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, a declaration of compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order relating to notice was filed with the Court as required by the Preliminary Approval Order. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Settlement Class Members were properly notified of their right to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing in support of or in opposition to the proposed Settlement Agreement, the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel, and the payment of a Service Award to the Class Representative. The Court, having reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Final Order and Judgment only, the Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: All individuals that received notice from Crystal Bay in or around February 2023, of a data security incident involving their Personal Information. The Settlement was entered into in good faith following arm's length negotiations and is non-collusive. The Settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class and is therefore approved. The Court finds that the Parties faced significant risks, expenses, delays, and uncertainties, including as to the outcome, including on appeal, of continued litigation of this complex matter, which further supports the Court's finding that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that the uncertainties of continued litigation in both the trial and appellate courts, as well as the expense associated with it, weigh in favor of approval of the settlement reflected in the Settlement Agreement. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. The Court concludes that Class Representatives have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and in recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves a payment to the Class Representatives in the amount of $1,000.00 each as a Service Award. Defendant shall make such payment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Thiago M. Coelho of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and David Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman as Class Counsel. The Court concludes that Class Counsel has adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. The Court, after careful review of the fee petition filed by Class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate standards required by relevant case law, grants Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees in the amount of $225,000.00. Reasonable costs and expenses of $15,480.01 are also awarded. Payment shall be made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC, serves as claims administrator. Additional information is available at https://www.crystalbaysettlement.com/ A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fWoGR Counsel to Crystal Bay: James W. Davidson, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER, LLC 1 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 422-6100 E-mail: jdavidson@ohaganmeyer.com D.R. HORTON: Fernandes et al. Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Jason Fernandes & Lauren Fernandes, Myk & Cindy Barbero, Keith & Janet Patri, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D.R. Horton, Inc., Archer Exteriors, Inc., Professional Exteriors II, LLC, and John Does1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2024-CP-18-00821, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial Circuit, County of Dorchester, South Carolina, to the District of South Carolina on July 11, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03928-DCN to the proceeding. The case contains the following counts: (1) negligence and gross negligence; and (2) breach of implied warranties. D.R. Horton is a home construction company based in Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: John T. Crawford, Jr., Esq. Jason Imhoff, Esq. Kimila L. Wooten, Esq. David L. Paavola, Esq. Amelia M. Farmer, Esq. KENISON, DUDLEY & CRAWFORD, LLC 325 W McBee Ave, Suite 301 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 242-4899 Facsimile: (864) 242-4844 E-mail: crawford@conlaw.com imhoff@conlaw.com wooten@conlaw.com paavola@conlaw.com farmer@conlaw.com DEDMAN'S SANITATION: Marshall Seeks Trash Collectors' Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- MALCOLM MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEDMAN'S SANITATION and JIM DEDMAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00127-DPM (E.D. Ark., July 25, 2024) is an action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately June of 2017 to August of 2022 as a trash collector. He asserts that Defendants have deprived him and other trash collectors of proper overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiff also contends that Defendants misclassified him and other trash collectors as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Dedman's Sanitation owns and operates a sanitation and waste disposal service in Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 North Saint Paul Street, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cgualls@foresterhavnie.com DEL MONTE: Cox and Johnson Sue Over Deceptive Product Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMIE COX and MARY JOHNSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-04204 (N.D. Cal., July 11, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and sale of its Deluxe Gold Pineapple products. According to the complaint, the principal display states the Deluxe Gold Pineapple products' content consists of slices, chunks or tidbits in 100% pineapple juice. The side panel assures consumers that this is Del Monte's "highest quality variety of pineapple" which is non GMO, non BPA, devoid of added sugars and GUARANTEED to contain NO PRESERVATIVES. However, contrary to the representation on the product's label--guaranteeing that it contains "No Preservatives," the ingredient deck reveals the inclusion of citric acid. Throughout the applicable class periods, the Defendant has falsely represented the true nature of its products, and as a result of this false and misleading labeling, was able to sell these products to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California, New York and the United States. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's conduct is in breach of warranty, violates California's Business and Professions Code, California Civil Code, New York General Business Laws, and is otherwise grounds for restitution on the basis of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. Moreover, Plaintiffs conducted an independent chemical analysis of Del Monte's product to determine the amount of citric acid, as well as the product's acidity reflected in terms of pH. The analysis unequivocally demonstrates that Del Monte's product employs a preservation system in which the additional citric acid functions as a preservative, says the suit. Headquartered in Walnut Creek, CA, Del Monte Foods produces, distributes and markets branded processed food for the U.S. Retail market. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com DOXIM INC: Narolis Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Narolis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Doxim, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-11587-FKB-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 18, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive information held throughout the typical course of business of Plaintiff and the Class. On or about December 30, 2023, an unauthorized actor gained access to the Defendant's network and computer systems and obtained unauthorized access to Defendant's files. However, the Defendant neglected to notify all affected individuals of the data breach quickly and appropriately until on or about May 31, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Headquartered in Canada, Doxim, Inc. provides software as service to credit unions, healthcare, finance, insurance and banking sectors worldwide. Its major office is located at 1911 Woodslee Drive, Troy, MI. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866.252.0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com DRAFTKINGS INC: McAfee Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MATTHEW MCAFEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 29D03-2406-CT-006326, was removed from the Hamilton County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 11, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Indiana assigned Case No.1:24-cv-01168-JPH-MJD to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and breach of contract. Draftkings, Inc. is a sports betting company headquartered in Boston, MA. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq. Dakota C. Slaughter, Esq. BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 684-5000 Facsimile: (317) 684-5173 E-mail: PZimmerly@boselaw.com DSlaughter@boselaw.com - and - Richard Patch, Esq. Rees Morgan, Esq. Emlyn Mandel, Esq. Franklin Krbechek, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP 1 Montgomery St, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-4800 Facsimile: (415) 989-1663 E-mail: ef-rrp@cpdb.com ef-rfm@cpdb.com ef-erm@cpdb.com ef-fsk@cpdb.com ELITE WALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calderon Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JORGE CALDERON; JULIAN MARTINEZ; EMILY PEREZ; TOMAS PEREZ; and SAMUEL NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE WALL SYSTEMS LLC; GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY; WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY; HITT CONTRACTING, INC.; and SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-02191-PX (D. Md., July 26, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as construction workers. Elite Wall Systems LLC is a construction company based in Deer Park, NY and specializes in plaster and gypsum board assemblies, exterior insulation and finish. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Corman, Esq. Christine E. Webber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com bcorman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Mark Hanna, Esq. Arlus J. Stephens, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON, PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 296-9600 Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com astephens@murphypllc.com EXPLORE INFORMATION: Faces Thao Suit Over False Consumer Info ------------------------------------------------------------- LENG THAO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EXPLORE INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-02695-JWB-DTS (D. Minn., July 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by systematically reporting inaccurate information on consumers, by inaccurately reporting that they have been convicted of crimes when they have not, and by reporting records more than once. According to the complaint, the Defendant has also willfully violated the FCRA by failing to undertake reasonable reinvestigations of consumer disputes of inaccurate information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1681i. In the spring of 2024, the Plaintiff sought to increase his life insurance coverage, from $50,000 to $100,000, and he contacted his insurance company to apply for increased coverage. On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiff received a letter from non-party American National Insurance Company ("American National") informing him that he was denied the increased coverage. The letter indicated that "[t]he action taken on your application for insurance was affected in part or in whole from information obtained from the consumer reporting agency indicated below: Explore Information Services." The Plaintiff was shocked to see that Explore's file indicated that, in conjunction with the Plaintiff's insurance application, Explore had reported that the Plaintiff had been convicted of felony assault in the second degree, misdemeanor domestic assault and two felony violations of a domestic abuse order for protection. None of these convictions belong to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's inclusion of them on his report was erroneous. The Defendant's misreporting, duplicative reporting and failure to correct its reporting caused concrete harm to the Plaintiff, including causing his insurance denial, harm to reputation, stress, and inconvenience and lost time resulting from his efforts to correct his report. The false and derogatory information on the Defendant's report was also read by the Plaintiff's insurance company, which is a concrete harm in and of itself, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff Leng Thao is an individual person and a resident of Little Canada, Minnesota. Explore is a consumer reporting agency ("CRA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler St NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces RICO Suit Over Content Fraud ------------------------------------------------------- N.Z.; R.M. B.L.; S.M.; and A.L., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FENIX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; FENIX INTERNET LLC; BOSS BADDIES LLC; MOXY MANAGEMENT; UNRULY AGENCY LLC (also d/b/a DYSRPT AGENCY); BEHAVE AGENCY LLC; A.S.H. AGENCY; CONTENT X, INC.; VERGE AGENCY, INC.; and ELITE CREATORS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01655 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2024) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the Content Fraud Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity to carry out, or attempt to carry out the scheme to defraud, that employed the use of the wire facilities. The Defendants participated in the scheme to defraud by using the internet to transmit and operate the Content Fraud Enterprise, says the suit. Fenix International Limited is a multifaceted technology company. The Company offers administration, software development, mobile app creation, data protection, and hardware and cloud services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Michella A. Kras, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com michellak@hbsslaw.com FLORIDA: People Requests Hearing After Losing Medicaid Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- Jackie Llanos of Florida Phoenix reports that state agencies received more than 11,000 requests for hearings from people challenging their loss of Medicaid benefits between April of last year and this May, but held only 484 hearings, according to evidence presented in federal court Thursday, August 1. The office overseeing the hearings reversed the Florida Department of Children and Families' decision to revoke people's Medicaid benefits in just 52 appeals. At that time, DCF was reviewing the Medicaid eligibility of millions after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, making errors that led to children and postpartum women losing benefits. Some 70% of the hearings were canceled after the people who filed appeals withdrew them. Most of those people said DCF altered their case files after they submitted the formal complaints, according to the data. But Brandy Jones, a supervisor in charge of hearing requests who testified on Thursday, couldn't say whether the people who withdrew their appeals did so because they'd gotten their benefits back. "I believe there's a part on the form for explaining the withdrawal, but it's not required," Jones said in court about a form people can fill out to drop their request for a hearing. In short, the Office of the Inspector General, which acts as an arbitrator between Floridians and DCF, doesn't track what happens to appeals people drop or abandon. Thirty-three people work in that office, Jones said. Jones is one of several state employees who have taken the stand in the federal class action filed by Medicaid patients alleging Florida violated their constitutional right to due process when it took away their health care coverage without proper notice. Their testimony has provided insight into Florida's management of the subsidized health care program through its notices and call center. How long does the appeals process take? People who disagree with DCF's decision to revoke their benefits can request a hearing, and the agency must provide those people a packet with information about their cases seven days before the hearing. But hearings can take time. It took the state two months to schedule a hearing for an Orlando woman DCF wrongly kicked out of Medicaid while she was seven months pregnant, according to the notices she received. The agency restored her benefits in August. If someone has an urgent medical need, that person can request an expedited hearing. The frequency of requests for expedited hearings has increased from one or two per month to 10 per week since the review of eligibility post-COVID started, Jones said. She suggested the system works insofar as clients are aware of their rights. "The number of appeals we receive states the fact that it's well known," she said. Wording of notices But the agency has changed the wording describing the right to a fair hearing in the notices it sends people. DCF must provide continued Medicaid coverage to people who appeal. Notices previously stated that people would have to pay the state back for the coverage provided during that time if they didn't win the appeal. In October, the statement was changed to read that benefits may have to be paid back, but that sentence only changed in the footer of the notice. It took the agency until April to make that change throughout the entire notice. The bench trial is scheduled to end on Friday but the judge presiding over it, U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard, indicated on Thursday that the dispute won't be solved soon. "I just want to make sure that when this ends up in the Court of Appeals we have an appellate record," she said to the attorneys, referring to the labeling of exhibits. Attorneys from the Florida Health Justice Project and the National Health Law Program represent the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs succeed, all the people the state kicked off Medicaid without proper notice could have their coverage restored. Approximately 1.9 million lost Medicaid benefits in Florida, according to KFF's tracker of the situation. [GN] FORMULA ONE: Discloses Subscribers' Info to 3rd Parties, Palma Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTEBAN PALMA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORMULA ONE DIGITAL MEDIA LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05283 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of disclosing the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated Formula One TV subscribers to unrelated third parties, Meta and Salesforce, without obtaining prior consent. Through use of the Meta Tracking Pixel, the Defendant discloses to Meta the full name and URL of each video a user watched, together with the user's Facebook ID, thus linking users' viewing content choices and preferences to their Facebook profiles. Moreover, the Defendant utilizes Salesforce's comprehensive array of tracking and analytics tools to optimize its marketing, advertising, and analytics-ultimately increasing its viewer base and subscription revenue. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's violations of the VPPA. Formula One Digital Media Limited is a video tape service provider based in England. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com FRESNO SPORTS: Minor League Baseball Dismissed as Defendant ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as CHRISTINE JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRESNO SPORTS AND EVENTS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00352-KES-SAB (E.D. Calif.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike Fresno Sports and Events LLC's answer and affirmative defenses; and dropped Minor League Baseball Inc. as a defendant. According to a report by The Know Youth Media, the lawsuit stemmed from a Ladies' Night promotional event on May 25, 2023, by the Fresno Grizzlies Minor League Baseball team. On that day, women received free admission to the game, whereas men and non-binary individuals had to pay an $18 fee. The lawsuit alleges the promotional event was a discrimination on gender in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On March 26, 2024, Harry Crouch and Christine Johnson filed a class action complaint against the Fresno Grizzlies ownership and its operators. On June 28, 2024, FSE filed an answer. On July 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike FSE’s answer and affirmative defenses. On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a withdrawal of the motion to strike and a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Minor League Baseball Inc. pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a). Based on the withdrawal of the motion to strike, the motion shall be disregarded, the Court holds. Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Defendant Minor League Baseball Inc. has not filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action and the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment, the Court states. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D8MLSk GOLD MEDAL: Mazzochi Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN MAZZOCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD MEDAL ENVIRONMENTAL OF NJ INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08046 (D.N.J., July 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws. The complaint asserts that although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff Mazzochi was employed by GME in New Jersey as an hourly driver from approximately March of 2016 until May 2019, and again from October 2019 through August 2021. Gold Medal Environmental of NJ Inc. is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Murphy Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05111 (S.D.N.Y., July 4, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://greenlight.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on June 3, 2024, in an attempt to sign up with the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, 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. Greenlight is a financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal HEMPSTEAD, NY: Court Overrules Objections to Discovery Order ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Joan M. Azrack of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York overruled Plaintiffs' objections to the Discovery Order issued by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay in the case captioned as GB, a pseudonym; NP, a pseudonym; MA, a pseudonym, as legal guardian of BA, a pseudonym; PM a pseudonym, as parent and natural guardian of BF a pseudonym; HK a pseudonym; and MV, a pseudonym, as parent and natural guardian of RD, a pseudonym, on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, -against- Town of Hempstead, Anthony Santino, William Muller III, Diana Bianculli-Muller, Nasrin G. Ahmad, Michael Zappolo, Citizens for Santino, Federico Amorini, Matthew R. Coleman, Joseph J. Ra, John/Jane Doe Republican Organizations, and John/Jane Doe Other Entities, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06625-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y.). On April 22, 2024, Judge Lindsay issued an Order that, among other things, denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants William Muller, III and Town of Hempstead to submit to forensic examinations of the former's personal email account and the latter's computer systems. In November 2017, Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action asserting that Defendants violated the United States Constitution and New York law by sharing and using for political purposes the names and addresses of participants in Camp ANCHOR, the Town's recreation and education program for special needs people. The parties conducted discovery under Judge Lindsay's supervision from the commencement of this case. Over the next five years, the Court repeatedly extended the discovery deadline at the parties' request. In September 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel additional depositions and authorize Plaintiffs' computer expert to examine Town computers and the personal emails of Muller and non-party Matthew R. Coleman. The motion was predicated in part on (1) the Town's inability to provide certain materials that reportedly should have been backed up on its electronic system, and (2) Muller's inability to locate an electronic copy of an October 31, 2017, email he received from Coleman that attached a Camp ANCHOR participants list, which Muller previously produced in hard copy form. Judge Lindsay denied that motion but, among other things, directed the Town to answer five detailed queries, directed the Town to "conduct the relevant searches and either produce responsive documents located during such searches or certify that the searches were conducted and that no responsive documents were located," and directed Muller to "confirm that his personal email account was searched for documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests." Defendants confirmed that they complied with those obligations. Of note, Muller represented that he was unable to locate the Original Email but found and produced an electronic copy of an email that forward the Original Email and its attached list. In November 2023 and January 2024, Plaintiffs sought court-intervention for Defendants' alleged failures to comply with their obligations under Judge Lindsay's prior order; Plaintiffs also renewed their forensic examination request. Judge Lindsay then issued the Discovery Order, which found all of Plaintiffs' contentions meritless. The Court holds plaintiffs have not shown that the Discovery Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OBFblJ JOY SYSTEMS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05635 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.joysystemspc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on June 14, 2024 to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Joy Systems, Inc. offers refurbished personal computers. The Company offers a variety of desktop computers, laptops, and monitors.[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 JV ASSET: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ PASQUALE AGNONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JV ASSET HOLDCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05269 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.johnvarvatos.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. JV Asset Holdco, LLC provides to the public a website known as Johnvarvatos.com which provides consumers with access to an array of men's apparel, footwear, and accessories which the company offers in connection with their physical location. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Carew Sues Over Droop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CAREW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL, INC.; ALBERT D. BOLLES; JAMES G. HALL; BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN; and JOHN MORBERG, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03028 (D. Minn., July 29, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Lifecore securities between October 7, 2020, and March 19, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Lifecore maintained deficient internal controls over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company issued several financial statements that were inaccurate and would need to be restated; (iii) Lifecore's purported remediation efforts with respect to the foregoing deficiencies were ineffective; (iv) all of the foregoing impaired Lifecore's ability to timely file periodic reports with the SEC in compliance with NASDAQ listing requirements; (v) accordingly, the Company's financial position and prospects were materially overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Lifecore's stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 30.32 percent, to close at $5.01 per share on March 20, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. operates as a contract development and manufacturing company. The Company offers sterile injectable pharmaceutical products in syringes and vials as well as the manufactures pharmaceutical-grade sodium hyaluronate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com gmfishbein@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com LIVEXCHANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jackson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Coleman Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LiveXchange Technologies, Inc. d/b/a GigCX Marketplace, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01914 (D. Colo., July 11, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a customer service agent on or about August 15, 2023. However, GigCX also required Plaintiff to complete a two-week training program. During this training program, Plaintiff worked approximately 50 hours each week. However, GigCX only paid Plaintiff $400 in total, falling far short of its minimum wage and overtime wage obligations to Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado law. In addition, rather than classify Plaintiff as an employee, Defendant classified him as an independent contractor. Accordingly, Plaintiff Jackson alleges violations of the FLSA, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and its implementing regulations, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order. LiveXchange Technologies, Inc. operates as a staffing agency, which allows its clients to fill their customer service needs through GigCX's app-based platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com LORENZ HIGH: Liz Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LORENZ HIGH DEFINITION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05713 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.thesmartesthouse.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, hidden elements on the web page, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, inaccurate drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Lorenz High Definition, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com LURIE CHILDREN’S: Faces Angulo Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT ANGULO, CHERIE KLEPEK DEANA SPAULDING, and SANDRA WEYERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENCORA, INC., and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03015 (E.D. Pa., July 11, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' protected personal information stored within Defendants' information networks and servers. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons by virtue of a preventable cyberattack on one of their vendor networks that occurred on February 21, 2024. Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of duty, and breach of implied contract. Cencora, based in Conshohocken, PA, formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, is an American pharmaceutical company with over 46,000 employees worldwide. It provides pharmaceutical distribution services for doctor's offices, pharmacies, and animal healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Heo, Esq. Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 E-mail: aheo@barrack.com jgolan@barrack.com MACROGENICS INC: Crain Sues Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------- DEREK CRAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACROGENICS, INC.; and SCOTT KOENIG, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-02184-DLB (D. Md., July 26, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased MGNX's stock or sold MGNX puts between March 7, 2024 to May 9, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning MGNX's early interim safety data from the MGNX's ongoing TAMARACK Phase 2 study of vobramitamab duocarmazine (vobra duo) in patients with metastatic astration – resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that materially mislead and failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. The Defendants provided an update on the Phase 2 TAMARACK study of vobra duo. The announcement summarized a research abstract's finding as to vobra duo's safety profile, in which grade 3 events were under 32 percent for both doses and no death reports. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts related to early interim safety data results from the TAMARACK Phase 2 study. On May 9, 2024, the data mentioned pertinently shows that, "Treatment – Emergent Adverse Events All Grade" were 98.9% and 100% for the two doses. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to MGNX's revelation. The price of MGNX's common stock declined dramatically. On May 9, 2024, MGNX's stock closed at $14.67 per share. On May 10, 2024, the stock declined to $3.31 per share. In total, MGNX's stock declined 77.4 percent due to a drop of $11.36 per share, says the suit. MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious diseases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Cafritz, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Email: jcafritz@zlk.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com MARINEMAX INC: Liable to Clients' Compromised Info, Lomedico Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRO LOMEDICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARINEMAX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01784 (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. MarineMax, Inc. is a company that sells boats and boating services, headquartered in Clearwater, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com MDL 2873: Mitchell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY ANN MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota, Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04177-RMG (D.S.C., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, she was diagnosed with kidney cancer, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during her working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Mitchell case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Telephone: (404) 381-2888 E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Over Social Media Addiction -------------------------------------------------------------- Jared Lackman-Mincoff of CTV News reports that a Montreal man is launching a class-action lawsuit against the parent companies of several social media platforms, alleging they are too addictive and cause harm. The defendants named in the lawsuit include Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms, as well as the owners of TikTok, YouTube and Reddit. The Montreal law firm Lambert Avocats is arguing that the platforms' specific design to increase dopamine secretion causes users to get addicted to the platforms and has negative effects on their mental health and self-esteem. The main plaintiff is a 24-year-old man who began using social media in 2015 and alleged he experienced blows to his productivity and body image. He used social media apps for up to four hours daily but has since reduced his time to roughly two hours, according to the class-action suit. "He still finds that it has an effect on his productivity and his sleep," said Philippe Brault, an intern at Lambert, in an interview. A judge must authorize the lawsuit before it can proceed. Brault says many people have contacted the firm since the class action was made public on Monday, July 29. The firm was eager to take on the lawsuit because it feels this is an ever-growing problem. "In 2024, it's estimated that humanity as a whole will be using social media for a total of 500 million years," Braultadded. "That just goes to show that it's not a problem for a certain number of individuals, it's a widespread problem for everyone." The lawsuit claims that platform creators were intentionally negligent in creating platforms meant to make users dependent on them. The firm and plaintiff feel that the owners are responsible for ensuring that the users' health and safety remain a top priority, especially for kids. According to Brault, 52 per cent of kids aged seven to 11 in Canada use social media. "They're focused on profit. They're not focused on benefitting broader society," said London, Ont.-based tech analyst Carmi Levy in an interview with CTV News. "Even though they understand that their tools are causing issues in mental health among their users, they do nothing to stop it." Platforms have argued in the past that usage is entirely voluntary, and anybody experiencing adverse effects can simply limit their usage time or delete the apps. However, Emma Duerden, assistant professor in the Faculty of Education at Western University, does not believe it is that simple due to the quantities of dopamine the brain releases when using social media apps. "We know that children can be highly motivated by rewards, and teens can often engage in lots of risk-taking behaviour," said Duerden, also a Canada Research Chair in Neuroscience and Learning Disorders. "There's this mismatch between the reward systems, which are very active, and the other parts of our brain, which are responsible for putting the brakes on those reward systems and only become really developed in our 20s and 30s." She also feels that the lack of filters and restrictions on social media leaves a lot of content that children and teens should not be seeing, which can increase stress levels. Duerden is also concerned about what children and teens are not doing while spending so much time on social media apps, such as "interacting with others, playing sports. All those things are really important for healthy brain development," Duerden added, noting the consequences sometimes only appear in adulthood. Lambert Avocats is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. "We're also looking to get this message out there by talking to the media," Brault added. "People have to understand the risks to the use of social media." Google, Meta, and TikTok did not respond to requests for comment from CTV News. [GN] MNGI DIGESTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Austin Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SAMMIE LEE AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03035-NEB-TNL (D. Minn., July 29, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's computer system and network was the target of a cyberattack that resulted in unauthorized access to the personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information. The Data Breach was an actual and foreseeable result of the Defendant's inadequate security measures. As a result of the Defendant's actions, or lack of action, the Plaintiff and Class members now face a substantially increased risk of identity theft, and other crimes from the unauthorized disclosure of their PII and PHI. The harm was exacerbated by months of dithering before MNGI notified its patients of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant liable for the financial, emotional, and other costs imposed upon the Class by the Defendant's misconduct. MNGI Digestive Health, P.A. specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of adults and children with GI disorders and our board-certified gastroenterologists have expertise in virtually all types of digestive conditions, such as acid reflux disease, heartburn and swallowing disorders, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, hepatitis and liver disease, biologics and infusion therapy, celiac disease, hemorrhoid banding and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent M. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone: (612) 940-4452 Facsimile: (952) 283-1525 Email: kent@williamslawfirmmn.com - and - William Darryl Harris II, Esq. HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS, LLC 3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246 Upper Arlington, OH 43221 Telephone: (614) 504-3350 Facsimile: (614) 340-1940 Email: will@harrislegaladvisors.com MNGI DIGESTIVE: Peterson Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Peterson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MNGI Digestive Health, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-24-11168 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., July 25, 2024) is a class action against MNGI for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs and other similarly situated MNGI patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information, including name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license information, and medical information from threat actors. On June 7, 2024, MNGI set out the notice to individuals whose information it determined was compromised as a result of the data breach, which MNGI indicates included 765,937 individuals. Despite learning of the data breach in August 2023, MNGI waited until June 7, 2024 to notify Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for 10 months that their personal information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address MNGI's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' personal information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. MNGI Digestive Health, P.A. is a Minnesota-based physician practice that specializes in the diagnosis of adult and pediatric digestive system disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com erittergordon@locklaw.com MONSECRETS INTERNATIONAL: Blind Can't Access Website, Picon Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSECRETS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05705 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.thecloudslides.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Monsecrets International, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com MOOG INC: Munguia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled DANIEL MUNGUIA, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. MOOG, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV11688, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05835 to the proceeding. The case asserts ten causes of action against Moog on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) meal break violations; (4) rest break violations; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to provide one day's rest in seven; (7) wage statement violations; (8) failure to timely pay all wages due at separation; (9) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and (10) violation of Unfair Competition Law. Moog, Inc. designs, manufactures, and integrates precision control components and systems. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ronda D. Jamgotchian, Esq. Michael T. Campbell, Esq. Daniel J. Ganz, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: rjamgotchian@sheppardmullin.com mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com dganz@sheppardmullin.com MOSAIC BAYBROOK: Files Appeal in Simien Suit -------------------------------------------- MOSAIC BAYBROOK ONE, L.P., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Paul Simien, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2017-08379, in the 133rd District Court of Texas. The appellate case is captioned Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P., Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P., and Mosaic Residential, Inc. vs. Paul Simien, for himself and all others similarly situated, Case No. 24-00540, in the First Court of Appeals in Texas, filed on July 18, 2024. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this case is a dispute over a "Water/Sewer Base Fee" that Landlords billed tenants each month to recover certain amounts it had paid the municipal utility district. The Tenant challenged a fee that included not only each apartment's allocated portion of the utility's customer service charge for water and sewer service but also an undisclosed amount equivalent to a portion of the utility's charges for non-water emergency services. Tenant sued under the Water Code on behalf of a tenant class. The trial court granted Landlords' motion for partial summary judgment on liability and certified a class. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in granting partial summary judgment; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class.[BN] Defendants-Appellants MOSAIC BAYBROOK ONE, L.P., et al. are represented by: Dylan B. Russell, Esq. HOOVER SLOVACEK LLP Galleria Tower II 5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 977-8686 Plaintiff-Appellee PAUL SIMIEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Britton D. Monts, Esq. THE MONTS FIRM 501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-6092 - and – Jason Snell, Esq. SNELL LAW 404 W. 13th Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477-5291 - and – Russell Stanley Post, Esq. BECK REDDEN LLP 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 MSCHF PRODUCT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Castillo Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE OLIVA CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MSCHF PRODUCT STUDIO INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22850-BB (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. MSCHF Product Studio Inc. is an American art collective based in Brooklyn, New York, United States. MSCHF has produced a wide range of artworks, ranging from browser plugins to sneakers, social media channels and AI generated foot photographs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com MULTIPLAN INC: Mehrnaz Sues Over Repressed Reimbursement Rates -------------------------------------------------------------- MEHRNAZ JAMALI MD, INC., Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC., MULTIPLAN CORP., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., AETNA, INC., ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., CENTENE CORP., CIGNA GROUP, HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORP., HUMANA INC., AND KAISER PERMANENTE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04508 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2024) is a class action arising from the Defendants' antitrust conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. This case is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of healthcare providers to challenge a cartel of virtually all the major health insurance companies in the United States. By agreeing to collectively use the repricing software created by MultiPlan, Inc., the cartel entered into an on-going, industry-wide conspiracy to fix the reimbursement rates paid to Providers for out-of-network healthcare claims, referred here as the "MultiPlan Cartel." To participate in the conspiracy, insurers are required to provide MultiPlan proprietary competitively sensitive information. This CSI includes claims pricing data and reimbursement strategies. Insurers' CSI is synthesized by MultiPlan to effectively fix reimbursement rates paid to providers for out-of-network services. MultiPlan pushes a consistently low reimbursement rate to all its co-conspirators, leaving providers with no competitive alternatives. On top of this, because of the obligation imposed upon them through the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, providers are left with no means of seeking proper pay for services they were mandated to deliver, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' unlawful agreement, health care providers, including Plaintiff and the Class members, throughout the United States have received artificially repressed reimbursements for out-of-network healthcare services they have provided beginning no later than July 1, 2017, and running through the present. MultiPlan, Inc. is a provider of healthcare data and analytics products and services with principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shinae Kim-Helms, Esq. Christopher V. Le, Esq. Joshua Callister, Esq. Nathan Cihlar, Esq. Boiesbattin, LLP 4041 University Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 764-8700 E-mail: skimhelms@boiesbattin.com cle@boiesbattin.com jcallister@boiesbattin.com ncihlar@boiesbattin.com NATALS INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05637 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.ritual.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on June 14, 2024 to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Natals, Inc. doing business as Ritual, develops nutritional supplements. The Company offers products including beaded oil capsule vitamins for women.[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 NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Out Jury Verdict in Ticket Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Johnson of Deadline reports that a federal judge tossed out a jury's $4.7 billion judgment against the NFL over the price of its NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions, concluding that the experts put forth by the class action plaintiffs were using faulty economic models. U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granted the league's motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling that, without the reliable expert witnesses, it was "impossible for a jury to determine on a class-wide basis that Sunday Ticket subscribers would have indeed paid less in the absence of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. The judge added that "plaintiffs failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could make a finding of injury and an award of actual damages that would not be erroneous as a matter of law, be totally unfounded and/or be purely speculative." Gutierrez also vacated the hefty damages awards, concluding that they "were not based on the 'evidence and reasonable inferences' but instead were more akin to 'guesswork or speculation.'" It was just weeks ago, in late June, that an eight-person jury sided with a class of DirecTV subscribers that the NFL violated antitrust laws by offering Sunday afternoon games via the premium subscription service. The lawsuit, first filed in 2015, covers 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses such as bars and restaurants who paid for out-of-market games from the 2011 to 2022 NFL seasons on DirecTV. It alleged that the league broke antitrust laws by selling the Sunday game package at an inflated price and then by offering the sought-after Sunday Ticket games only on a satellite provider. In 2023, the NFL kicked off a seven-year, $14 billion deal with YouTube TV, which moved Sunday Ticket to streaming after a 29-year run on DirecTV, which had launched the package. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the league was engaging in price-fixing because fans of a single team were not able to buy just that team's games. (Under the terms of media rights deals with networks, local stations carry games in teams' home markets on over-the-air broadcast television.) Instead, the only option was to sign up for all out-of-market games on Sunday Ticket, which costs hundreds of dollars a season. But Gutierrez called out the models used by Daniel Rascher and John Zona. Economic experts typically are key witnesses in antitrust cases, as they model the impact of alleged anti-competitive conduct. The case already was dismissed once before, by a federal judge in 2017, but the 9th Circuit gave new life to the lawsuit and it eventually proceeded to trial. In a statement to reporters, the NFL said: "We are grateful for today's ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit. We believe that the NFL's media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television." [GN] NEW MODEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bolden Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- LAQUEENA RENEE BOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW MODEL LOGISTICS LLC; VALIANT MANAGEMENT AND HOLDINGS, LLC; and PHIL VICKERS, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00493-FJG (W.D. Mo., July 26, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bolden was employed by the Defendants as a first responder. New Model Logistics LLC is an active freight brokerage based out of Simpsonville, Kentucky. The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Butsch, Esq. Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Ave, Ste. 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 Email: butsch@butschroberts.com roberts@butschroberts.com - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com NEW SOUTH WALES: Strip-Searches Class Action Trial Set May 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Heffler of edm.com reports that over 100,000 people have been invited to participate in a landmark class action lawsuit stemming from controversial strip-searches at various music festivals in New South Wales, Lawyers Weekly reports. The suit was jointly filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales back in July 2022 by Redfern Legal Centre and Slater and Gordon Lawyers, whose representatives are challenging the legality of strip-searches conducted by NSW law enforcement officers at festivals between 2016 and 2022. According to a press release issued at the time by Redfern Legal Centre, police carried out "unlawful acts including assault, battery and false imprisonment against festivalgoers while searching them for illicit substances," including minors. Some attendees, the firm said, alleged they were directed by officers "to lift or remove items of clothing, lift their breasts or genitals, or strip naked and squat and cough so officers could visually inspect body cavities." The lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Raya Meredith, claimed she was subjected to an "invasive" strip-search by the NSW Police Force at the 2018 Splendour in the Grass music festival. The ordeal lasted roughly 30 minutes, she told Redfern Legal Centre. "Our investigations show that invasive and unlawful police searches at NSW festivals have become routine, resulting in very few charges, but leaving thousands of young people and minors humiliated and severely traumatized," said Redfern's senior police accountability solicitor, Samantha Lee. Legal representatives from the NSW government had unsuccessfully filed motions to dismiss the suit, citing insufficient common issues among those who were strip-searched, according to Australasian Lawyer. "The police are supposed to be there to keep people safe. But I was left feeling I could no longer trust the police," said one attendee, Becca, per Slater and Gordon's website. "I felt I had no way of making a complaint about an experience which left me feeling violated." "I was asked to take off my jacket and shirt and was patted down," explained another, Ben. "The officer also ran his thumb around the inside waistband of my underpants—his thumb was between my underpants and my skin. I just did what I was told at the time but thinking about it now makes me feel really uncomfortable." The prosecuting firms have encouraged potential plaintiffs to register for the class action suit and gauge their eligibility via a group member guide. The trial is scheduled to begin on May 5th, 2025. [GN] NEW YORK: Loses Bid to Extend Discovery in Cardew, et al. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark W. Pedersen of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied Defendants' motion for an extension of discovery in the putative class action captioned as Robert Cardew, et al., Plaintiffs, v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-6557-CJS-MJP (W.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs have disabilities that require the use of wheelchairs and canes, for example. But the New York Department of Corrections and Community supervision and its prisons, which house Plaintiffs, are alleged to often deny the use of wheelchairs, canes, braces, and cushions. Plaintiffs moved for class certification; that motion remains pending. Twelve days before the deadline for completing discovery, Defendants served discovery requests on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not agree to extend deadlines. Defendants ask Judge Pedersen to extend discovery by 19 days, making their discovery requests timely. According to Judge Pedersen, "I must decide if Defendants' discovery requests are untimely. If they are timely, I need not analyze whether Defendants need an extension. But the weight of authority establishes that when service of new requests is within 30 days of the close of discovery, those requests are untimely." If Defendants had ample time to pursue the discovery requests they now seek, another relevant point is that they are bound by AAG Brown's acts and omissions. Judge Pedersen says, "Against this backdrop, Defendants cannot show diligence. After all, 'an application' to permit untimely discovery 'should be denied where the moving party has not persuaded the Court that it was impossible to complete the discovery by the established deadline.'" In this case, it was possible for Defendants to have served their discovery requests years ago, the Court finds. Discovery in this case opened at least with my first scheduling order issued in January 2022. Surely, from the outset of this case, AAG Brown would have known that he could serve the general discovery requests Defendants now attempt to serve. He did not. "Whatever the reason, because Defendants had 'ample opportunity to pursue the evidence' they now seek, I must deny their motion," Judge Pedersen concludes. Defendants are bound by AAG Brown's decision not to serve discovery requests, despite having had ample time to do so, the Court states. Judge Pedersen adds, "On this record, even if Defendants could show diligence, I find these belated discovery requests prejudice Plaintiffs. 'Given the already lengthy delay in completing discovery in this case,' I find that 'further delay' for Defendants' discovery requests -- which Defendants could have served years ago -- will prejudice Plaintiffs." A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BAEkTU Attorneys for Plaintiff: Chloe Ines Holzman, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Ave, 14th Flr New York, NY 10017 Hallie E. Mitnick, Esq. Megan P. Welch PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES 114 Prospect St Ithaca, NY 14850 Andrew A. Stecker, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES 14 Lafayette Sq, Ste 510 Buffalo, NY 14203 Attorney for Defendant: John A. Marsella, Esq. Muditha Halliyadde, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE Attorney General 144 Exchange Blvd, Ste 200 Rochester, NY 14614 NORTH EAST TRADERS: Website is Blind-Inaccessible, Valencia Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH EAST TRADERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05627 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.blankkingdom.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on March 20, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. North East Traders, Inc. is an online store offering a selection of heavy fleece clothing and a variety of blank apparel.[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 NURTURE LIFE: Lamacchia Sues Over FCCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- BRENDAN LAMACCHIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NURTURE LIFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-003087-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., July 11, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic mail communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the consumer debt on the following dates: June 14, 2024, June 21, 2024, and July 5, 2024. However, those communications were sent by Defendant at 7:01 AM and 7:00 AM at Plaintiff's time zone, in violation of the FCCPA, says the suit. Nurture Life, Inc. is a baby and kids meal delivery service headquartered in Chicago, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com OLIVER CABELL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Agnone Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oliver Cabell, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04807 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. By failing to make its website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface in which only its sighted customers can independently browse and learn more information about the company and its services without the assistance of others, says the suit. Headquartered in Plymouth, MN, Oliver Cabell, Inc. maintains the website, https://www.olivercabell.com, which provides consumers with access to footwear and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail:Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com ORION CONSTRUCTION: Barrett ERISA Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JENNY BARRETT, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ORION CONSTRUCTION CORP., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 37-2024-00024473-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 11, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01194-DMS-VET to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Headquartered in Vista, CA, Orion Construction Corp. is a general engineering company that specializes in federal, municipal, and government construction. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Chad T. Wishchuk, Esq. FINCH, THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP 4747 Executive Drive - Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 737-3100 Facsimile: (858) 737-3101 E-mail: cwishchuk@ftblaw.com P777K FREIGHT: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Perry Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DORYAL PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. P777K FREIGHT INC. and PETER KRUSCIC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05648 (N.D. Ill., July 4, 2024) is an action brought on behalf of current and former delivery drivers challenging Defendant P777K Inc.'s unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors and thereby violating the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff challenges P777K's unlawful practice of making deductions from delivery drivers' wages and requiring them to bear expenses which should have been properly borne by P777K. As a result of the deductions and expenses he and other drivers were forced to incur, there were weeks in which the delivery drivers' pay fell below the Illinois and federal minimum wage. The Plaintiff further asserts that he and other delivery drivers were classified by P777K as independent contractors, they were, in fact, employees of P777K. The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all current and former delivery drivers who have contracted with Defendants to provide delivery services for P777K between July 3, 2014, and the present. The Plaintiff also brings this case as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of all current and former delivery drivers who have provided delivery services for P777K between July 3, 2021 and the present. Mr. Doryal Perry worked for P777K in Illinois as a truck driver between May and June, 2024. P777k is a licensed and DOT registred trucking company running freight hauling business from Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com PANERA LLC: Faces Buchanan Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Panera, LLC, et al. The case is captioned Nia Buchanan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC and Panera Bread Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-04099-WJE (W.D. Mo., June 18, 2024). The case is brought over Defendants' alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendants' information network. Headquartered in Jefferson City, MO, Panera serves freshly prepared, clean food in 48 states across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com PARAGON 28: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Paragon 28, Inc. (NYSE: FNA) resulting from allegations that Paragon 28 may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Paragon 28 securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27557 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On July 30, 2024, after the market closed, Paragon 28 filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. It stated that "On July 30, 2024, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Audit Committee") of Paragon 28, Inc. (the "Company"), in consultation with management, concluded that the Company's previously issued audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, contained within the Annual Report on Form 10-K for that year (and the associated audit report of the Company's independent registered accounting firm) and the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contained within the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023, and March 31, 2024 should no longer be relied upon due to errors in such financial statements, and therefore a restatement of these prior financial statements is required. Accordingly, the Company intends to restate the aforementioned financial statements by amending its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 and its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 (the "Restated Filings") as soon as reasonably practicable." On this news, the price of Paragon 28 stock fell by 13.7% on July 31, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PEEK TRAVEL: Charles Sues Over Unlawful Ticket Fee Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------- ZHARIA CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEEK TRAVEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-04201 (N.D. Cal., July 11, 2024) seeks all available relief under New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law and New York General Business Law. The Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of all other ticket purchasers for all places of entertainment in the state of New York that use Defendant's ticket purchase platform. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's platform failed to disclose the total cost of her ticket prior to the ticket being selected for purchase. Plaintiff claims that she was ambushed by non-delineated "fees" at checkout, after clicking through the various screens required to make a purchase. The fees are masked under the ambiguous category "Taxes & Fees," and Peek does not provide a breakdown of how much fees go to itself as opposed to the place of entertainment, nor does it explain what the fees are for, says the suit. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Peek is a software-as-a service company that integrates and designs a platform to purchase tickets to various places of entertainment located in New York, including the Color Factory NYC, the Museum of Ice Cream, the Inter_Intermersive Art Museum, or the ARTECHOUSE. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com PERION NETWORK: Court Appoints Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has appointed the following as Lead Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE PERION NETWORK LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 24-cv-02860-VEC (S.D.N.Y.): -- Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., -- Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., -- Menora Mivtachim Vehistadrut Hamehandesim Nihul Kupot Gemel LTD, -- Clal Insurance Company Ltd., -- Clal Pension and Provident Ltd., and -- Atudot Pension Fund for Employees & Independent Workers Ltd. On June 17, 2024, eight movants filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel: (1) Michael Semerak; (2) David Clark; (3) Leon Shaw; (4) Matthew Iverson; (5) Bibin Varghese; (6) City of North Miami Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund; (7) Shannon Lambert, Jackson Lambert, and Cristobal Lopez Boelken; and (8) Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Vehistadrut Hamehandesim Nihul Kupot Gemel LTD, Clal Insurance Company Ltd., Clal Pension and Provident Ltd., and Atudot Pension Fund for Employees & Independent Workers Ltd. According to Judge Caproni, Menora and Clal satisfy the requirements for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Court held that the Lead Counsel will have the following responsibilities and duties, to be carried out either personally or through counsel whom Lead Counsel shall designate: (a) to coordinate the briefing and argument of motions; (b) to coordinate the conduct of discovery proceedings; (c) to coordinate the examination of witnesses in depositions; (d) to coordinate the selection of counsel to act as a spokesperson at pretrial conferences; (e) to call meetings of the Plaintiffs' counsel as they deem necessary and appropriate from time to time; (f) to coordinate all settlement negotiations with counsel for Defendants; (g) to coordinate and direct the pretrial discovery proceedings and the preparation for trial and the trial of this matter and to delegate work responsibilities to selected counsel as may be required; and (h) to supervise any other matters concerning the prosecution, resolution or settlement of this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gTXDPm PLACID OIL: Day Town's Motion to Stay Crooks et al. Case Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the motion filed by Day Town Operating, L.L.C. to stay the case captioned as Steve H. Crooks, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Placid Oil Co., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-04457 (W.D. La.). Day Town seeks a stay of the proceedings pending the final adjudication of all claims in the related state court litigation, Crooks, et al. v. State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, in the Ninth Judicial District Court in Rapides Parish, Louisiana bearing docket number 224,262. No opposition was filed by any party. The state trial court recognized the Crooks as the owners of the riverbanks and ordered the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources to pay damages for expropriation and mineral royalties received from the riverbank lessees. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's award for mineral royalties but vacated the expropriation aware after finding the claim for inverse condemnation was prescribed. Day Town alleges that the 2023 Louisiana Legislature (Regular Session) passed Act No. 397 wherein approximately $10,000,000 was appropriated for partial payment of the final judgment in the State Court Litigation. On July 17, 2023, the trial court judge directed the Louisiana Department of Treasure to pay and deposit into the registry of the court the appropriated funds. The State has deposited the funds in the state court registry for distribution to the class plaintiffs pending proof of claims. The State Court Litigation and final judgments never determined the new property boundaries of the class plaintiffs. In the State Court Litigation, class plaintiffs Catahoula Lake Investments, LLC and Foster Investment Corporation filed a Motion to Adopt Proof of Claim Process. Day Town asserts that the state court must render judicial determinations to resolve outstanding disputes between class members before it can appropriately distribute available funds to the proper parties. Courts consider the following factors in deciding whether to stay proceedings: “1) hardship and inequity on the moving party without a stay; 2) prejudice the non-moving party will suffer if a stay is granted; and 3) judicial economy.” According to Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes, "Here, the best exercise of the Court's discretion is to stay this case pending the final adjudication of the nearly twenty-year protracted State Court Litigation. The property at issue has been subject to the jurisdiction of the Ninth Judicial District Court since the inception of the class action in 2006. The state court is presently adjudicating the new property boundaries to allocate distribution of the State funds deposited in its registry to class plaintiffs. Given the progression of the two overlapping actions, and the significantly more advanced progression of the State Court Litigation, judicial economy and the interest of justice favor a stay. There appears very little prejudice to Plaintiffs in entering a stay and they do not oppose this motion. Resolution of the state court claims would resolve or moot the same claims in federal court. Thus, a stay in this matter is appropriate." A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zsD7jE PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tampons Contains Toxic Lead, Barton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01332-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2024) is an action alleging that the Defendant fails to disclose, and materially omits, that its Tampax Pearl tampons (the "Products") contain an unsafe amount of lead. According to the complaint, based on independent scientific testing and analysis, ordinary and expected use of the Products exposes consumers to far more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day. The Defendant has an independent duty to disclose the lead in the Products based on the health risk associated with use of the Products and because the Products are unfit for consumer use. The Defendant does not disclose, and materially omits, that the Products contain lead. Although Defendant does not disclose that the Products contain lead, the Defendant makes other advertising statements on the Product labels, which are designed to increase sales of the Products, says the suit. The Procter & Gamble Company manufactures and markets consumer products. The Company provides products in the laundry and cleaning, paper, beauty care, food and beverage, and health care segments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste.192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com RBC GLOBAL: Ontario Court Certifies Trailer Fee Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports an Ontario court has certified the seventh and final class action against a large fund manager over the alleged improper payment of trailer commissions to discount brokers. The Superior Court of Justice certified a proposed class action against RBC Global Asset Management Inc. and RBC Investor Services Trust on behalf of investors in RBC's funds that paid trailers to discount brokers. "The plaintiff alleges that the trailing commissions are excessive, inflated and/or unearned, and were paid by the defendants in breach of their trust, fiduciary and contractual duties to the class members who held those mutual funds," the court said in its certification decision. None of the allegations has been proven. The certification motion was not opposed by RBC. Six other cases that make substantially similar allegations have already been certified against the other big banks' fund managers, and one large independent. In general, these cases allege that the fund managers improperly paid trailer commissions to discount brokers to compensate the dealers, at least in part, for ongoing advice they didn't provide. Discount brokers are prohibited from providing advice under the terms of their registrations. In 2022 the Canadian Securities Administrators banned the practice of funds paying trailers to discount brokers. In certifying the case as a class action, the court noted that several other class actions making the same allegations have already been certified against other large fund managers, and that a couple of these involved contested hearings (TD Asset Management Inc. and BMO Investments Inc.). In this case, the court found that four of the five criteria for certifying a case as a class action were met: the plaintiff has a viable case, the case raises common issues, there is an identifiable class of people to be represented, and the case makes sense to pursue as a class action. The only issue for the court in this case was whether there's a suitable representative plaintiff to lead the action. The court concluded that the proposed plaintiff was suitable, has an appropriate litigation plan, and a plan for notifying affected investors. [GN] REMINGTON FIREARMS: Asks Judge to Dismiss Rifle Defect Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- StarTribune reports that gun manufacturer Remington has asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit by Montanans who bought a type of rifle that can reportedly misfire without the trigger being pulled. Allen Bowker and Eric Huleatt filed their lawsuit in June on behalf of thousands of Montana residents who bought Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifles. They are asking U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to grant them class-action status for all Montana residents who purchased the rifle, claiming that Remington owes them for their economic loss for buying rifles with faulty trigger assemblies that make them worthless. Bowker and Huleatt allege the manufacturer's parent companies knew the trigger assembly was defective and did nothing to warn customers or fix the problem. Their product-liability claim also alleges the manufacture breached the express and implied warranties of the rifle. They are suing Remington Arms Co., Sporting Goods Properties Inc. -- the name by which the gun manufacturer is now known -- and E.I. DuPont de Nemours Inc., which owned all of Remington's stock before 1993. Excluded from the class-action lawsuit is anybody who was injured by the rifle's misfiring. Robert Carlson, attorney for the gun manufacturer, said in his court filing Monday, July 29, that time had run out on the warranty claims for the two named plaintiffs, and this is only the latest of several claims filed recently. Similar lawsuits have been dismissed in Oklahoma and Arkansas, Carlson said. Several people filed lawsuits against Remington following a 2010 CNBC documentary about problems with the trigger assembly. In one of the most recent, a federal judge in Montana ruled that the statute of limitations had expired on a lawsuit by Brad and Dianna Humphrey of Fairfield that claimed Brad Humphrey was paralyzed when his stepson's Remington Model 700 misfired in 1989. The Humphreys said they found out about the problems with the bolt-action rifle only after the documentary aired, but the judge dismissed their lawsuit in April. They are appealing. Huleatt bought his rifle in 2000, and Bowker bought his in 2006. Implied warranty claims run out after four years, and express-warranty claims run out after two years, Carlson said. In addition, Huleatt never alleges that his own rifle actually misfired, he said. No Montana court has ever recognized a liability for a defect that has not manifested itself, Carlson said. Christensen did not immediately rule on the request to dismiss the lawsuit. [GN] SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: City of Inkster Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF INKSTER POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY; JAMES HAGEDORN; CHRISTOPHER J. HAGEDORN; MATTHEW E. GARTH; DAVID C. EVANS; and CORYJ. MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03766-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 26, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Scotts common stock between June 2, 2021 and August 1, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") against Scotts and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the rest of the Class Period, Scotts repeatedly assured investors that its inventory levels were appropriate, that it was experiencing peak or record sales periods, and that the Company was going to stay in compliance with its debt covenants. Indeed, after multiple months of saturating the sales channel, Defendants continued to assure investors that channel inventories were not a problem. The press releases made by the Defendants during the Class Period, were materially false or misleading because, in reality, Scotts was pushing products through its sales channels at a pace that outstripped demand. As the Company recognized that its supply of inventory far exceeded consumer needs, Defendants engaged in a scheme to saturate the Company's sales channel with more products than those retailers could sell through to consumers. Further, and as the Company admitted at the end of the Class Period, Scotts was critically close to violating its debt covenants and would have needed an "exceptional year" to remain in compliance with its covenants. The price of Scotts common stock shares fell $13. 58 per share, or 19 percent, from a closing price of $71.44 per share on August 1, 2023, to a closing price of $57.86 per share on August 2, 2023. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company markets branded consumer lawn and garden products, as well as a full range of products for professional horticulture. The Company manufactures and markets fertilizers, pest controls, plant foods, gardening soils, grass seed, and other products in North America and Europe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Richard S. Wayne, Esq. William K. Flynn, Esq. Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 East Fourth Street, 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 Facsimile: (513) 629-9426 Email: rswayne@strausstroy.com wkflynn@strausstroy.com rrsparks@strausstroy. com - and - Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Rachel A. Avan, Esq. Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888)631-3611 Email: ravan@saxenawhite.com mduenas@saxenawhite.com SIGNALHIRE LLC: Must Face Gaul's Suit over Use of Image, Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Shadid of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied SignalHire LLC's motion to dismiss the class action case brought by Sherry Gaul for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Ms. Gaul, an Illinois citizen, alleges SignalHire violated the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, 765 ILCS 1075, by knowingly using free previews of her identity, as well the identities of the class members, without consent, to advertise and promote a paid subscription to its digital recruiting database. Ms. Gaul seeks 1) an injunction requiring SignalHire to cease its allegedly unlawful conduct; 2) actual damages or statutory damages of $1,000 per violation to the members of the Class, whichever is greater; 3) punitive damages; and 4) attorney's fees and costs. SignalHire argues that there is no specific jurisdiction because 1) it has no business connections in Illinois, 2) it does not collect information for its database from an Illinois source, 3) it does not direct advertising to Illinois or Illinoisan residents, and 4) the website is geographically neutral. Ms. Gaul argues that SignalHire purposefully directed its activities toward Illinois by collecting Illinoisans' personal data and using those individuals' locations across Illinois to sell its service. Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Gaul has sufficiently alleged that SignalHire purposefully directed its supposed unlawful conduct toward Illinois, and that her injuries are related to those activities. The Court notes that the IRPA is a state law tort action. Even though SignalHire is a foreign entity, its "inconvenience is not a dispositive factor because modern technology and transportation allow it to litigate with relative ease anywhere in the United States" and it has "already retained counsel" in Illinois, the Court states. These reasons, when combined or individually, lead the Court to conclude that its exercise of personal jurisdiction over SignalHire is reasonable and inoffensive. SignalHire's Motion under Rule 12(b)(2) is denied, because Ms. Gaul has sufficiently alleged a prima facie case as to the Court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. SignalHire argues, in the alternative, that under Rule 12(b)(6), Ms. Gaul has failed to plead facts that state a claim. In particular, Signal Hires argues that 1) Ms. Gaul's claim is barred by the IRPA's statute of limitations, and 2) she failed to allege her identity was used for a "commercial purpose," as is required to state an IRPA claim. SignalHire argues that it did not use Ms. Gaul's identity for a commercial purpose, because all information about a specific individual, as seen on the Marketing Page, may be accessed for free. SignalHire also avers that the IRPA claim fails since Ms. Gaul's information was not used to advertise a separate product, because her personal information is the product itself. Ms. Gaul, in the Response, argues that "free previews" are actionable under the IRPA when, as in this case, they are used to encourage a subscription purchase. The use of a plaintiff's identity in connection with a "free preview" to advertise or promote a monthly subscription service is a "textbook example" of an IRPA violation, the Court says. The Complaint clearly alleges that SignalHire used Ms. Gaul's identity to encourage a user to sign up for a free trial, and in turn, a paid subscription, the Court notes. SignalHire seems to think that it is insulated from liability under the IRPA because Ms. Gaul's identity was used to directly advertise a free trial rather than the paid subscription. Furthermore, this is clearly not a case where the plaintiff's personal information is sold as a standalone product. The subscription, rather than Ms. Gaul's personal information, is SignalHire's true offering. Thus, Ms. Gaul has sufficiently alleged that her identity was used to promote a separate product, which some courts hold to be necessary under the IRPA, the Court finds. Ms. Gaul has adequately alleged that SignalHire's use of her identity was for a commercial purpose under the IRPA, and so this argument does not necessitate dismissal of the suit, the Court holds. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SlZ1k8 SignalHire, a Polish company headquartered in Warsaw, operates a website that sells a subscription to access to a database of personal information compiled from various digital sources. SND National: Iverson et al. Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Eric Iverson et al. v. SND National Ministry Corporation et al, Case No. 2024CUFR021250, was removed from the Superior Court of California for County of Ventura, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 18, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05157-WLH-AGR to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged fraudulent practices. The Defendants are represented by: Michael J Gleason HAHN LOESER AND PARKS LLP Telephone: (619) 810-4300 E-mail: mgleason@hahnlaw.com - and - Victoria Manfredonia, Esq. HAHN LOESER AND PARKS LLP Telephone: (619) 810-4344 E-mail: vmanfredonia@hahnlaw.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Court Okays Stipulation in Tuerpe, et al. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulation entered into by the parties in the case captioned as CHRISTOPHER TUERPE, Derivatively on Behalf of SNOWFLAKE, INC. Plaintiff, ANK SLOOTMAN, MICHAEL P. SCARPELLI, BENOIT DAGEVILLE, MARK S. GARRETT, JAYSHREE V. ULLAL, KELLY A. KRAMER, MICHAEL L. SPEISER, TERESA BRIGGS, CARL M. ESCHENBACH, and JOHN D. MCMAHON, Defendants, and, SNOWFLAKE, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02502-RS (N.D. Calif.). The Court also stayed this action pending resolution of the putative securities class action captioned Flannery v. Snowflake, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01234-PCP (N.D. Cal.). On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff Christopher Tuerpe filed the complaint in this action against Defendants. On May 20, 2024, the Parties filed a stipulation setting Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to July 19, 2024, which was so-ordered by the Court on May 21, 2024. On May 21, 2024, the Court issued an Order setting an Initial Case Management Conference in this action for July 25, 2024, and setting various deadlines for the Parties to file a Case Management Statement and exchange disclosures contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is a putative securities class action captioned Flannery v. Snowflake, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01234-PCP (N.D. Cal.). There is an apparent overlap between the facts and circumstances alleged in this action and the Securities Action, including the potential relevance of many of the same documents and witnesses. Snowflake, Frank Slootman, and Michael P. Scarpelli, named Defendants in this action, are also named as defendants in the Securities Action. The Securities Action Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the Securities Action after the filing of an amended complaint; and in order to ensure economy of time and effort for the Court, for counsel, and for litigants, the Parties have agreed that, in light of the apparent overlap between the facts alleged in this action and the Securities Action, and in light of the fact that the outcome of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Action may inform the proceedings in this action, this action should be stayed until the court in the Securities Action rules on the anticipated motion to dismiss the Securities Action. The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for October 3, 2024 is vacated, along with all associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, until a date that is convenient for the Court after the stay is lifted. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N4lHbE SNOWFLAKE INC: Kirby Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM KIRBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE, INC. and AT&T INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01934-E (N.D. Tex., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on Snowflake's systems following a data breach between April 14, 2024, and April 25, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Snowflake, Inc. is a cloud storage service provider based in Bozeman, Montana. AT&T, Inc. is a multinational telecommunications corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Steckler, Esq. Austin P. Smith, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@swclaw.com austin@swclaw.com judgestick@gmail.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com TKO GROUP: Judge Rejects Proposed Settlement With UFC Fighters -------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Goldsmith, writing for Deadline, reports that UFC parent TKO slammed a ruling on July 31 by a Nevada judge rejecting its proposed settlement with former fighters in a class action lawsuit. "We obviously disagree with this ruling and believe it disregards the expertise of counsel from both sides, as well as that of an accomplished and expert mediator -- all of whom have decades of experience in antitrust case law," the Endeavor-owned company said in a statement this afternoon," insisting that the $335 million settlement announced in the spring is in the best interest of athletes. Nixing it "prevents the athletes from receiving what they have argued is in their best interest and unwinds an extensively negotiated settlement that, in the plaintiffs' counsel's own words, 'would far surpass the typical antitrust class action settlement' and ‘is an excellent result for the Settlement Classes by all traditional measures.' "Additionally, by taking the unusual step of denying the settlement at this preliminary approval stage, the Judge is also denying the athletes their right to be heard during this pivotal moment in the case," TKO said after Judge Richard Boulware of U.S. District court in Nevada denied the settlement. It was unveiled in late March just before an April trial was set to start. The judge also set a new trial date of October 28 in a setback to the Dana White-led mixed martial arts league. A fuller written order with his reasoning should be issued in coming days. There are two separate class action suits pending. Le v Zuffa -- the class consolidating five similar lawsuits -- is the one now tentatively set to head to court. A status conference for both suits, where the trial date will be finalized, is set for August 19. A motion to dismiss the complaint in Johnson remains pending and no trial date has been set, TKO noted in an SEC filing. TKO shares, which fell earlier in the session after the ruling, are up by a hair just before market close at about $110. TKO said it's "evaluating all of its options, including, without limitation, an appeal, and has also initiated discussions with plaintiffs' counsel, who have expressed a willingness to engage in separate settlement discussions for the Le and Johnson cases." The lawsuits were launched in 2014 and 2015 by fighters claiming that the UFC violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by abusing its monopoly power to limit fighters' pay. The UFC and TKO rejected the claim. The company said when it announced the settlement that it planned to pay in tax deductible installments. A number of the former fighters behind the suit were pleased with the settlement. However, news reports indicated that the judge may also be concerned about protections for current fighters going forward. The initial suit against UFC alleged an "overarching anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its (a) monopoly power in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional Mixed Martial Arts ("MMA") Fighter bouts, and (b) monopsony power in the market for live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services. It claimed UFC eliminated "competition from would-be rival MMA Promoters by systematically preventing them from gaining access to resources critical to successful MMA Promotions, including by imposing extreme restrictions on UFC Fighters' ability to fight for would-be rivals during and after their tenure with the UFC. As part of the scheme, the UFC not only controls Fighters' careers, but also takes and expropriates the rights to their names and likenesses in perpetuity. As a result of this scheme, UFC Fighters are paid a fraction of what they would earn in a competitive marketplace." The sides will have a status conference on August 19. [GN] TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces Chaves Suit Over Cereal Bars' False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- OCTAVIO CHAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 613059/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., July 25, 2024) arises from the Defendant's false and deceptive representations and omissions with its "Fruit & Grain Cereal Bars" product's contents, origins, ingredients, flavoring, type, functionality, and/or quality in violation of the New York General Business Law. Despite the representations of "Blueberry - Naturally Flavored," displaying the bar's dark blue filling, described as being "Made With Real Fruit," surrounded by five fresh blueberries, resting on a blue and white plaid tablecloth, in packaging of various shades of blue, evocative of the color of blueberries, the Product's blueberry taste is derived from artificial flavoring ingredients. This is not disclosed on the front label or the fine print on the back in the ingredient list, listed in order of predominance, which confirms the fruit filling contains blueberries and natural flavor, but also an ingredient identified as "malic acid," says the suit. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately $2.79 per box of eight 1.3 ounce bars (37 g), excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit alleges. Topco Associates, LLC operates as a strategic sourcing company. The Company provides procurement, quality assurance, packaging, and other services for its food industry member-owners and customers. Topco Associates serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Murphy Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05697 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal WAYFAIR LLC: Counts, et al. Case Gets Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as KAYLA COUNTS, KAYLYNN MAJOR, and NATHAN CHURCHILL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAYFAIR LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-11706-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action and authorize notice of that action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). On July 28, 2023, plaintiffs Kayla Counts, Kaylynn Major, and Erica Dujardin brought this action against Wayfair. On December 8, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, terminating Dujardin and adding Nathan Churchill as a named plaintiff. The amended complaint contains four counts. Count 1 alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201, et seq.; Count 2 alleges violations of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, SC Code Ann. Secs. 41-10-10, et seq.; Count 3 alleges violations of the Oregon Wage Laws, Or. Rev. State. Ann. Secs. 652.120 et seq., 653.045, 653.160, and 653.261; and Count 4 alleges violations of the Maine Wage Payment Law, Me. Stat. tit. 26, Secs. 629, et seq. The amended complaint also contains collective and class action allegations. On December 8, 2023, plaintiffs moved for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) and for the issuance of court-authorized notice. Counts, Major, and Churchill are non-exempt current and former employees of Wayfair who worked remotely and who were paid hourly rates. They each perform (or performed) customer-facing work in the course of their employment at Wayfair. Section 216(b) of the FLSA permits employees to bring collective actions on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated. The standard for that initial determination is "fairly lenient" and "typically results in conditional certification of the representative [collective]." According to the Court, plaintiffs have satisfied the relatively lenient standard. As an initial matter, plaintiffs have modified the proposed collective from their motion for conditional certification. They initially sought to issue notice to "[a]ll current and former hourly-paid remote Customer Service Employees ("CSEs") that held the job titles of Customer Service Representative ("CSR"), Inbound Sales Specialist ("ISS"), or Customer and Resolution Expert ("CARE") who worked for Defendant at any time during the three years preceding the date granting conditional certification." Plaintiffs now seek to conditionally certify the following redefined collective: All hourly remote employees who are responsible for handling inbound phone calls, chats, or e[-]mails for the entirety of their shift from Wayfair's nonbusiness customers regarding existing product orders or new product orders. This includes employees between [insert 3 years from Order] to the present, and specifically does not include any individual subject to an arbitration agreement or supervisory employees. The Court finds plaintiffs have made the modest factual showing that members of the redefined collective are sufficiently similarly situated to justify conditional certification. They have offered declarations and documents that indicate that the proposed members performed similar job duties with similar expectations, the Court states. Furthermore, the allegedly relevant employee guides and policies attached by plaintiffs appear to apply to all defendant's employees or to all its virtual, hourly employees. There is also evidence that members of the proposed collective were paid an hourly wage, regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and were paid some amount of overtime, the Court adds. The Court acknowledges that it may ultimately prove to be correct that the collective members are not similarly situated in ways material to plaintiff's overtime claim. But at this stage, plaintiffs have put forth at least some substantial evidence that they are, and that is sufficient for conditional certification and the issuance of notice, the Court concludes. The Court will authorize notice to be sent by mail and e-mail. Further, it will authorize a reminder notice to be sent by either or both of those same methods to all members of the collective who have not yet returned signed consent forms 30 days following the initial notice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EWGLrm Wayfair, LLC is a home décor company that offers products to consumers nationwide through its website and a mobile application. Wayfair is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. WHITE HOUSE: Dalton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. White House Black Market Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02693-JWB-JFD (D. Minn., July 11, 2024), arises from Defendant's failure to ensure its website to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content. Headquartered in Fort Meyers, FL, White House Black Market Inc. offers clothing, shoes, and accessories for sale in its physical stores and on its website, www.whitehouseblackmarket.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com ZOGOX INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Parra Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZOGOX, INC. d/b/a AMCAN FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. and VUJADIN ZOGOVIC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05646 (N.D. Ill., July 4, 2024) is an action brought on behalf of current and former delivery drivers challenging Defendant AmCan's unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors and thereby violating the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff challenges AmCan's unlawful practice of making deductions from delivery drivers' wages and requiring them to bear expenses which should have been properly borne by AmCan. As a result of the deductions and expenses he and other drivers were forced to incur, there were weeks in which the delivery drivers' pay fell below the Illinois and federal minimum wage. The Plaintiff contends that, although he and other delivery drivers were classified by AmCan as independent contractors, they were, in fact, employees of AmCan. The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all current and former delivery drivers who have contracted with the Defendants to provide delivery services for AmCan between July 3, 2014 and the present. The Plaintiff also brings this case as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of all current and former delivery drivers who have provided delivery services for AmCan between July 3, 2021 and the present. Mr. Parra worked for AmCan in Illinois as a truck driver between March/April 2024. Zogox transports general freight, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com ********* 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 ***